Hunters Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
We reviewed people’s care plans and found these were comprehensive and contained key information about each person, including their communication preferences, personal care needs, health and wellbeing requirements, hobbies and interests, eating and drinking guidelines, and any medication or epilepsy management plans. This meant staff could also rely on this guidance to help support people appropriately.
Feedback from people was mixed regarding the extent to which they felt involved in developing or reviewing their care plans. One person told us, “Yes, I have seen my care plan and it is all ok”. Another person told us, “Not seen my care plan, but it has been discussed with me”.
All relatives interviewed confirmed they felt involved and well informed about the care and support needs of their family members. One relative told us, “Yes, reviews are held over the phone. Another relative told us, “Yes, I sign off the care plan”.
There was evidence of regular care plan reviews completed by the home’s management team.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.
People were supported by staff who understood their needs and how to support them safely. Records we reviewed demonstrated the use of the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) framework, supporting the service to safely modify and manage people’s diets to reduce the risk of choking. We saw evidence of involvement from a speech and language therapist (SALT), who contributed to the development of these plans. Guidance was clearly accessible to staff, both within people’s care plans and in the kitchen, ensuring the team could easily follow evidence‑based recommendations. The homes menu planner was reviewed weekly to ensure a varied diet was offered, this included involvement from the people living in the home. One person told us, “The food is enjoyable and staff help me cut up my food”.
Staff worked in partnership with individuals to ensure their priorities remained central to all decisions. The effective use of clinical tools and guidance supported ongoing assessment, monitoring, and adjustment of care, helping to ensure support was safe, personalised, and regularly reviewed to achieve the best possible outcomes.
One staff member told us, “We support all residents to be as independent as possible. We, as a team, push residents to complete tasks on their own whilst respecting and encouraging boundaries”.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.
Staff demonstrated effective partnership working with external professionals to ensure people’s needs were met in a coordinated way. Records reviewed during the assessment showed regular and proactive collaboration with the local GP and the consultant psychiatrist, supporting consistent oversight of people’s health and wellbeing.
During our discussion with the registered manager, we reviewed the recent transition of a person moving into the service. The transition was person‑led and involved coordinated input from the manager and the individual’s social worker. This included visits to the home, conversations about their room and preferred décor, and discussions about how best to support them. As part of this collaborative process, the service developed a care plan which was shared with the person prior to their move, helping to ensure a smooth and well‑informed transition. The person spoke to us as part of our assessment and they told us, “I am happy here and happy with how the staff help me”.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.
Records we reviewed evidenced close partnership working with external health professionals.
One person told us, “I visit the doctor, and they sometimes come here”. A relative told us, “Having checks can be difficult due to their needs but they (staff) work hard to ensure they are seen by professionals”. Another relative told us, “I am well informed”, when discussing health appointments for their relative. Staff had completed training across several areas relevant to people’s needs, including dysphagia, epilepsy, nutrition and hydration, mental health and communication training.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.
Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of how their observations and reporting contributed to improving outcomes for people. Information was shared effectively across the team through handovers and meetings, ensuring everyone remained aware of emerging risks or changes in people’s wellbeing. Records reviewed included the daily plan, which was shared as part of staff handovers. This provided key health updates and ensured all staff were aware of people’s needs each day, supporting consistent monitoring and timely responses to any changes.
We also saw evidence where learning from incidents and feedback informed updates to care plans, enabling more responsive support and contributing to improved experiences for people.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.
When a person was assessed as lacking capacity, staff followed Mental Capacity Act (MCA) principles and best‑interest processes to ensure decisions were lawful, proportionate, and aligned with the individual’s needs and preferences.
People told us they are involved in their care and support package, and when asked if they have given their consent for their support, all people spoken with told us they had.
All staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the legislation and their responsibilities when supporting people who were unable to make certain decisions independently. One staff member told us, “We should always assume a person has capacity, unless proven otherwise. We should always involve the person in the assessment and if they lack capacity, involve people that know them well in the best interest’s decision. Any best interest decision made should be the least restrictive option”.
Records we reviewed showed involvement from the person, their relative or legal representative, and, where appropriate, medical professionals or the local authority.