- Care home
White Lodge Residential Home
Assessment report published 4 November 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
White Lodge Residential Home is a care home. The service is registered to accommodate up to 29 people. At the time of our assessment there were 27 people living at the service.
Who the service is for
This is a service for older people.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 22 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
Systems and processes were in place to learn and adapt when things went wrong. Incidents, accidents and falls were reviewed to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Actions were taken such as reviews of risk assessments, increased monitoring, professional advice and introducing new equipment where appropriate.
Staff were trained and followed the provider's policy to recognise and report any safeguarding concerns. The service had a safeguarding lead who escalated any concerns appropriately and ensured learning outcomes were applied where needed.
People's care records contained information about their health needs and any associated risks. Risk assessments were in place and robust for all health needs including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, continence care and skin integrity needs. People were involved in formulating their care plans which staff followed to provide safe care. Staff promoted people's safety in line with their choices whilst prioritising their independence. A person with swallowing difficulties received food in line with the Speech and Language Therapist’s recommended consistency and staff discreetly monitored the person so they could continue to eat safely and independently.
The service was clean, well maintained and homely. Staff followed good infection prevention and control practices and personal protective equipment was available. Equipment and fire safety arrangements were maintained. Maintenance issues were responded to promptly.
We observed there were enough staff to support people and spend meaningful time with them. Staff were visible throughout our visit and people told us staff answered their call bells quickly and help was available when they needed it. There was a stable workforce which meant staff knew people's routines and preferences well. Staff completed induction and training; observations and competency assessments were undertaken to review their practices. Medicines were stored securely and staff administered medicines safely, respectfully and in a person-centred way. People who required time-critical medicines received them at the correct time.
People's needs were assessed and their care was reviewed when their needs changed. Staff utilised nationally recognised tools to assess people’s changing needs and contacted healthcare professionals where their input would benefit people. Visiting healthcare professionals told us staff contacted them in a timely way and followed their advice.
Staff sought consent before providing support and ensured people were given choices. Staff adapted their communication to the person, for example, allowing additional processing time, using visual information and watching people's body language and facial expressions. Where people were unable to make a particular decision, records included arrangements to involve representatives and professionals as appropriate.
We observed warm and respectful interactions between people and staff. Staff used humour and banter appropriately and adapted their approach when needed. During lunch, staff discreetly recognised when a person needed support to use the toilet and arranged this without drawing attention to them. People were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves including going out when they wished and could choose how to spend their time. People’s feedback shaped the menus, activity plans and improvements to the environment.
People received person-centred support in accordance with their individual preferences, routines and interests. This included maintaining links with friends, family and the community, following their faith and pursuing interests such as, the use of technology. People’s own spaces were personalised with their photographs, furniture and possessions.
People and relatives had opportunities to voice their views and provide feedback. Residents’ meetings were held and "You Said, We Did" arrangements demonstrated people’s suggestions about meals, activities and the environment were listened to and addressed.
There was a strong shared culture within the service, the registered manager was highly regarded by people, their families, professionals and staff. Staff told us they felt well supported by the management team, some comments included, “[Registered manager] is very lovely, sometimes I think too lovely. I could speak to them about anything, and they will do the best they can.” And, “They (management) are good here, I am very happy. It feels like a big family, all the residents are close and us staff too. I wouldn’t want to leave.”
The provider’s ‘Home Charter’ set expectations around respect, inclusion, communication, speaking up, learning and accountability and practices were modelled and monitored by the management team. Staff were enabled to contribute ideas and discuss areas for improvement through meetings and surveys. The service had developed meaningful links with its local community, including local schools and entertainers.
Governance systems monitored people’s support, incidents, medicines, infection prevention and control, staffing, health and safety and other areas to ensure a smooth running service. Managers from the provider’s head office provided additional oversight and support to the registered manager. Audits identified some areas for improvement and action plans were developed and monitored.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. At the time of our assessment no person had a requirement for a DoLS authorisation, however, the management team understood their responsibility to assess people’s mental capacity and apply where required. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People's experience of this service
Many people and relatives described a homely service where staff knew them well. One person said, “I am very content and happy. The staff are extremely kind, very helpful, serious, but they are fun and light-hearted.” They described feeling safe and said, “Oh yes I do feel safe, the care and the attention is why, there is usually somebody floating around and they are all very helpful.”
People told us the staffing levels met their expectations, one said, “There is always someone on duty at night, if I need help I press my button and they do come quickly. Oh yes, there are enough staff. I like they get to know you, they always check on me as I like to spend time in my room.” Another commented, “There are lots of staff, if I press my pendant they come quickly. All the staff are lovely. I like the cleaner that comes in, we have a little chat in the morning and the seniors bring me my medication. They are always very timely and I have faith that they know what they're doing.”
People told us staff understood when their needs changed. A person who required equipment and staff support with their mobility commented, “When they use (equipment) I do feel safe and I think that staff are trained well.” They said staff continued to promote their independence and told us, “The staff let me do what I can for myself, it's tailored to how you are and tweaked. They do what's required and with a smile on their face.”
We observed staff treating people with dignity and sensitivity. When a person became restless during lunch, a member of staff recognised this and discreetly checked whether they needed the toilet. Another member of staff then supported them without drawing the attention of other people. During medicines administration, staff explained what medicines were for, watched to ensure they had been taken and maintained people's dignity. Eye drops were administered away from the dining area for privacy.
People told us staff sought their permission. One person said, “They ask me all the time if I am happy for them to proceed with helping me have a wash.” Another told us, “(Staff are) very good with asking me for consent; anything they do they always check that I am happy for them to do it.”
People and their relatives spoke positively of the staff consistency, a relative told us, “Staff are well established, they’re the same ones, so it must be a good home, they don't leave.” A person said, “I would say they treat me with dignity, they treat me really nicely and I feel almost like one of their team. They are quite friendly, it works well.”
People's independence was emphasised. One person used a mobility scooter and independently caught the train to go shopping. They had a fridge in their bedroom for their own snacks and described their call bell as their ‘come and get me button.’ They told us, “On the whole though it's lovely here, I'm pleased I've moved and there's nothing I want to change.” Another person said, “I do as much for myself as possible and only need to ask the staff, but they do offer anyway if there's anything that I might need some help with.”
People and their relatives provided positive feedback about staff, comments included, “The staff are all very nice and very helpful, they know what I need.” And, “The staff are lovely, they really are. If they have any concerns, they will be in touch with me immediately. They always get to the bottom of something if they are worried about [person].”
People could personalise their rooms with photographs, ornaments, furniture and bedding. One person described their bedroom as “cosy and comfy.” Another person showed us photographs of their family and a crocheted shawl they had made and told us, “I have everything I need; everybody is very nice.”
Relatives also described staff knowing people as individuals. One relative told us, “I am extremely pleased with the home. I find it very comforting and homely, they just get to know the individual and their needs so well it gives me peace of mind.” They described staff keeping them informed about falls and healthcare appointments and said staff had supported their relative to use a walking aid following professional advice.
Another relative said the service was, “Nice and small and homely” and said, “The building is excellent on cleanliness and maintenance, if something is wrong it's sorted for [person’s] room too.”
A relative described staff as patient and kind, saying, “Overall they were very very kind, the staff there. They treat the residents with respect.” They said staff adapted their communication because their relative was hard of hearing, which included taking additional time to communicate when hearing aids were not tolerated.
At lunchtime we observed people sitting together and chatting. Music was playing and staff offered a selection of drinks, including soft drinks, sherry and wine. People were offered choices of food and desserts. One person told us, “The food is excellent, I have no complaints about the food, the selection is fine and the portions are fine.” Another said the chef regularly asked whether there was anything different they wanted. A relative said, “[Person] is very complimentary about the chef.”
Activities reflected different interests and people were able to choose whether to participate. During our visit, children from a local school visited and spent time playing games with people. We also observed a word activity where information was written in large letters so it was easier for people to see. People could participate, watch or decline. One person enjoyed a quiz run by another person who lived at the service and told us, “I’m not bored at all, I think sitting here sometimes is nice, I like my own company.” Another person preferred their laptop, television and DVDs rather than organised activities. Staff respected this while continuing to spend time with them.
Staff worked with a range of visiting professionals to promote good outcomes for people. People told us they had full access to professional advice. Comments included, “At times I have felt unwell and the staff have noticed and ask me if I would like a doctor. If I say yes one always gets arranged.” A relative told us communication was good when their family member became unwell and said, “If there is a problem, I am the first to know about it.”
People and their relatives told us they felt comfortable to raise concerns or give suggestions. A person told us previous minor concerns had been, “Sorted quickly.” Another told us they had provided feedback about food, completed a questionnaire and subsequently felt happier with the food provided.
We used Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) observations to understand people’s experiences of care, particularly where people were unable to verbally share their views. Throughout our visit we observed comfortable, familiar interactions between people and staff. Conversations included shared jokes and friendly exchanges. Staff knew individual preferences, including where people preferred to sit, the drinks they liked and small routines that mattered to them.