Hunters Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and any concerns in the home were listened to and acted on. People knew who they could speak with if they felt unsafe. We observed positive interactions between the people living in the home and the manager. Some people told us they would go to the manager if they had any concerns. One person told us, “Yes, I feel safe, I worry but not about living here. I worry about appointments”. One relative told us, “Yes they are safe, absolutely”.

The registered manager routinely reviewed accidents and incidents in a timely and structured manner. Documentation we reviewed showed that debriefs were completed with both the people involved and the staff team, supporting a lessons learnt process. The manager undertook a review of each event, identifying any lessons learned and recording these within the incident forms. Learning was then shared with the wider team to support continuous improvement and minimise the risk of events reoccurring.
During our assessment, we identified some gaps in staff knowledge regarding a person’s Epilepsy Management Plan. We raised this with the manager, who responded promptly. The plan was reviewed to ensure it contained the most up to date information, and the plan was shared with the whole team to ensure everyone had access to the most current information. Staff were then required to read and sign the reviewed plan to confirm their understanding, supporting a learning culture and ensuring the person continued to receive safe, informed care.
 

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.
Care records we reviewed evidenced people were supported to access additional services they needed to meet their needs. This included referrals and, support plans implemented by the speech and language therapist. We saw evidence of the home implementing these plans due to people requiring eating and drinking guidelines.
The staffing team worked closely with the local GP to ensure people’s health needs were met safely and effectively. In response to individuals’ support needs, the GP adapted their approach at the manager’s request. For example, due to some people experiencing anxiety around medical professionals, the home requested the GP attended without medical equipment and dressed in casual clothing. These reasonable adjustments helped reduce distress and supported people to access essential healthcare in a way that felt safe and comfortable for them.
The home had implemented individual ‘grab bags’ for each person, containing essential information to support safe and effective care in the event of a hospital admission. These included hospital passports, ensuring that vital details about the person’s needs, preferences and communication methods could be shared promptly with healthcare professionals.
The home also had robust systems in place to support people moving into the service and was clear about the actions required should a person need to transition out of the home, helping to ensure safe and well‑coordinated pathways of care.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.
Staff had completed safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities in recognising and reporting concerns. Staff we spoke with were able to confidently describe the actions they would take if they had any worries about a person’s safety, including reporting concerns both internally and to external agencies when required. One staff member told us, “If I had any concerns, I would go to the manager in the first instance. If I was not happy with the response, I would then go to the Regional Director. If I still wasn’t happy after all these actions, I would then go to the local council”. Safeguarding policies were in place. People were safeguarded from abuse, neglect, and discrimination and people told us they felt “safe” whilst living at the home.
One person told us, “I do feel safe, if I had concerns, I would speak with my social worker or tell the manager, and they would tell my social worker”.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.
Staff worked closely with people to understand the reasons behind behaviours and to implement supportive, person‑centred strategies. For example, when a person first moved into the home, they frequently activated the fire alarms. Staff explored the underlying causes of this behaviour and developed a positive, empowering approach. A personalised job description was created, and the person was interviewed for a fire marshal role. They were successful and now hold this responsibility within the home, which has helped reduce risk while promoting their independence, confidence and sense of purpose.
Staff had a strong understanding of people’s individual care and support needs. They told us care plans were clear, accessible and easy to follow, which helped them provide consistent support. Staff also described how they promoted choice, control and independence in day‑to‑day activities, involving people as much as possible in decisions about their care and the management of any associated risks.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.
We reviewed records used to maintain a safe environment within the home, including daily, weekly and monthly checks completed by both staff and managers. This included food safety checks, health safety checks and infection prevention and control checks.
We identified an issue with a window restrictor whilst onsite. This was brought to the attention of the manager, and they acted promptly to address and rectify the concern, ensuring the environment remained safe for people living there.
Each person had a personal emergency evacuation plan to support them in the event of a fire and detailed the best approach to support the person safely. Regular fire drills took place and we also saw evidence of people engaging in evacuations. One person told us, “On a Monday they do a test, staff come to get me, or I start to go outside”, another person told us, “I go to the car park”.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.
Staff told us, “The team work well together, there is good communication within the team and good communication from the management team”.
Another staff member told us, “Handovers are completed every morning, afternoon and evening and this helps with communication and being kept fully up to date”.
A daily allocation sheet was completed at the start of each shift, providing an overview of planned activities and ensuring staff were deployed effectively. This helped maintain an appropriate skill mix and ensured staffing levels met people’s needs throughout the day.
Staff also told us they felt there was enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. One staff member told us, “Staffing numbers is good, there is enough staff to support the residents, and they get out offsite a lot”.
A relative told us, “I have met staff, they are very helpful. The manager is helpful, always lovely, kind and caring”.
The provider offered additional develop opportunities to their staff. One staff member told us, “The company is big on staff development. I was put through my Diploma Level 3 and I am currently waiting to start my Level 4.”.
We reviewed supervision records, which showed staff were receiving regular supervision and appropriate support.
Rotas showed staffing levels were consistently met and were planned to meet the needs of the people living in the home.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.
The home was maintained to a good standard of cleanliness, creating a safe and hygienic environment for people living there. Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and used it correctly in line with current guidance.
All staff had completed training in infection prevention and control, ensuring they had the knowledge and skills required to minimise infection risks and uphold effective hygiene practices throughout the service. One person told us, in relation to staff supporting them in keeping the home clean, “yes, staff help me clean my room”. One relative told us, “The rooms are pleasant, and I like the environment”.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.
The home had a dedicated staff member who oversaw the home’s medication practices. They had good knowledge of medication processes and completed a weekly audit on the home’s medication management.
People’s medication administration records (MARs) were reviewed, and we found individuals were receiving their medicines in line with prescribing guidance.
The home worked closely with external healthcare professionals, including the local GP and psychiatrist, to keep medication care plans up to date and ensure they were reviewed regularly.
One person told us, “I visit the doctor, or they come here depends how I’m feeling”.
One relative told us, in relation to healthcare and medication updates, “Yes, I am kept informed about their health appointments”.
We reviewed training records which showed staff had received appropriate medication training. We also reviewed competency assessments, which were completed after training and included direct observations and knowledge checks before staff were permitted to administer medicines independently.
The home worked closely with the GP and psychiatrist to ensure they were following STOMP (Stopping Over‑Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or Both) principles, regularly reviewing medicines to ensure they were only used when necessary and always in the least restrictive, person‑centred way.