Alsley Lodge

Updated 5 August 2025

Date of assessment: 11 August to 20 August 2025. The service is a residential care home, supporting up to 33 older people. At the time of our assessment, 32 people were living at the home.

An unannounced inspection took place to review the quality of care and compliance with legal regulations. At the last inspection, the service was in breach of the legal regulations relating to person-centred care, safe care and treatment and good governance. At this inspection, enough improvements had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of these legal regulations.

Managers had improved systems to investigate, record and learn from incidents and staff had a good understanding of safeguarding. Information about risk was now robust and people were supported effectively when they communicated a need, emotion or distress. The environment was found to be safe and hygienic, with the appropriate checks in place. Recruitment processes and staffing levels had improved. Staff now had their competence routinely checked, and medicines management systems were safer.

People and their relatives had more involvement in the care planning process, and there was a good level of information in people’s care plans and records. Managers and staff had an excellent understanding of people’s nutrition and hydration needs, and supported people to achieve positive outcomes. Information sharing between the team and healthcare partners was effective, and robust systems had been introduced to monitor people’s health and wellbeing, and prevent deterioration. Assessments of people’s capacity were now carried out in line with The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Staff treated people exceptionally well and helped protect their dignity. Managers and staff had an excellent understanding of people’s backgrounds, needs and preferences and celebrated people’s strengths. There was a varied range of activities available, and people were supported to maintain their independence. Staff understood and responded to signs of distress quickly. Staff wellbeing and morale was good.

Care plans were now person-centred, and continuity of care was prioritised. People’s communication needs were met, and the home was very accessible; with managers advocating for people to ensure they had the care and treatment they needed, when they needed it. Advanced decisions and people’s end of life needs and wishes were well documented, and the service facilitated positive working relationships with a local funeral service and the hospice.

There was a positive, compassionate culture at the service and staff confirmed they were able to speak up. The registered manager and deputy manager were capable and led the home effectively. Digital systems had been introduced, improving checks and audits and contributing to an excellent level of oversight. Managers shared learning and resources with other services and developed positive connections within the local community. Managers and staff strived to continuously raise standards and enhance people’s quality of life.

Updated 5 August 2025

People and their relatives gave very positive feedback about the home and the care people received. Comments included, “I always say we are really lucky to have found this care home. I am blown away by how friendly it is and how staff treat people,” “I am happy with everything and would stay here myself,” and “I have full peace of mind knowing [person] is safe.”

Relatives told us people were safe and gave examples of how the home supported them to manage risk. A relative told us, “[Person] is very safe here. They eat well and are putting weight on. Staff sort out [person’s] medications and if they get up in the night there’s a sensor to alert staff. They have everything they need.” Another added, “[Person] had a fall, they now have bedrails on their bed and physio visited last week to check their walking frame.”

People and relatives confirmed people were supported to manage their healthcare needs, and we were given several examples of how staff had supported positive outcomes to people’s independence, health or wellbeing. We observed staff knocking on people’s bedroom doors, seeking consent and prompting people to make decisions about their day-to-day care.

Some people could not directly tell us about their experiences, so we used observations to assess their experience of care. Staff were seen to interact with people positively, in a kind and caring manner, and there was a very relaxed and friendly atmosphere at the home. A relative said, “Staff interact well with [person]. Their face lights up when staff come in which is lovely to see. Staff interact with everyone nicely.”

We received positive comments about the low turnover of staff and the impact this had on the continuity and quality of care. A relative said, “Staff seem to like working here, there’s hardly any changes to staff. It’s really nice that staff have been the same, it stems from them being happy.”

People and relatives explained how they were involved in planning people’s care and encouraged to give feedback. We observed people receiving person-centred care from staff who knew them well.

People and their relatives acknowledged improvements made at the home and complimented the managers for their contributions. A relative told us, “Managers are lovely. The registered manager continues to try and improve things. There have been loads of improvements since they came. They have done a lovely job of the environment, making it more homely. There’s nothing I would change.” Another added, “I have seen a massive improvement since [registered manager] has been here.”