You are here

Archived: Lindhurst Lodge Residential Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 14 September 2019

About the service

Lindhurst Lodge Residential Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 28 people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 37 people. The care home is purpose built with bedrooms on the ground and first floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe and liked living at the home. Relatives confirmed they thought their loved ones were safe. Systems were in place to record safeguarding incidents and staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and had confidence in the new manager. Risks to people were assessed and positive risk taking was encouraged, which supported people’s independence. However, risk assessments were not always individualised. People’s needs were reviewed, and this information was used to inform staffing levels. However, feedback from people and staff, and our observations suggested staffing levels would benefit from review.

We made a recommendation about this.

Medicines management processes were in place and staff were trained and had their competencies checked. Information to support people to receive ‘as and when’ medicines, when they were unable to say whether they were in pain, were not documented. Records did not identify where people’s prescribed creams should be administered, however staff were knowledgeable about this. Staff were diligent about identifying where additional information was needed from GPs to ensure medicines were administered safely.

Not all staff had been recruited in a robust and safe manner. Infection control procedures were in place. The service analysed information from checks and audits and used this to improve and learn and shared this information with staff.

People’s needs and choices about their care and support were assessed in line with legislation. Not all new staff had received appropriate training. People told us they liked the food. People were encouraged to eat and drink, a good variety of snacks, including fresh fruit was offered. People were supported to eat where they needed this.

Care notes were detailed and a handover between staff took place each day. Staff confirmed they found out about changes to people’s needs, however care plans were not updated thoroughly. Professionals we spoke with told us staff were responsive to their requests. Care plans showed health professionals were involved in people’s care when they needed to be. People had recently been asked about their preferences for activities and food choices.

Consent to care and support was sought and recorded. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff interactions were kind and caring, with good use of eye contact and appropriate touch. People told us staff respected their privacy and dignity. People and relatives were generally involved in their care and support plans, however recording of this could be improved.

We made a recommendation about this.

People’s care plans were detailed about the level of care they needed, however in some instances this had not been updated. Activities were very limited. Concerns and complaints were recorded and responded to appropriately. Action plans and lessons learnt were considered and implemented where appropriate as a result of any findings from these. People were supported during their end of life care however more detail was required in care plans to consider and support people’s wishes.

The new manager was clear about their challenges and plans to make improvements to the home. There was a plan of regular audits, these had not taken place for a period of time, but these had recently recommenced. People and staff spoke positively about the new manager, the supporting manager and registered provider. Regular satisfaction surveys took place, these were analysed and use

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 14 September 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 14 September 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 14 September 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 14 September 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 14 September 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.