Wessex Lodge Nursing Home

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 62 (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 did not always ensure that people’s care and treatment were effective, as they did not consistently check and discuss individuals’ ongoing health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them. While initial assessments were holistic and person-centred, ongoing assessments were not always effective, and care planning records were not consistently reviewed or updated to reflect people’s changing needs. For example, some assessments were completed at times when people were unlikely to have been involved, such as early morning or late at night, even when direct input or visual checks were required. This included oral health assessments which involved a visual inspection of the mouth but had been completed without clear evidence of the person’s participation. In another example, we found contradictory information within assessment records. Such as for 1 person, their dependency assessment noted no history of falls, while their falls assessment, completed the same day, recorded multiple falls had occurred during the past year. As a result, people’s evolving needs were not always reliably captured in their records, and the provider could not be assured that care was consistently delivered in line with current needs. Care plans and assessments did not always reflect changes in people’s health, support needs, or risks.

Initial assessments were carried out prior to admission and involved both people and their relatives. A range of assessment tools were used to understand each person’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs, supporting the design of care aimed at achieving positive outcomes.

Although care planning records were regularly reviewed, for some individuals there was insufficient evidence they had been involved. The provider explained that the electronic system timestamped entries based on when they were made, not when reviews occurred. However, this was not clearly documented in the records, limiting assurance people’s views and preferences were consistently considered.

We also received mixed feedback from people and relatives about their involvement in ongoing reviews. Comments from people included, “They often say we’ve seen your care plan it says this, would you like me to update it”, “I have been involved”, “No, they don’t talk about my care plan, but I get all the care I need” and “Not really but always ask if I am happy with my care.” Comments from relatives included, “There is a care plan in place somewhere, they asked all those questions”, “When [person’s name] first started here we did discuss the care plan, but no formal reviews”, “Care plan, they talk with me about relevant things, not seen it or signed it” and “Care plan not seen for 3 years.”

These shortfalls increased the risk that care may not reflect people’s current needs, preferences, or circumstances. Without regular and meaningful involvement in assessments and reviews, people may receive care that is outdated, misaligned with their goals, or unresponsive to changes in their health or wellbeing. This could result in missed opportunities for early intervention, reduced effectiveness of treatment, and a lack of person-centred support.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Care was delivered in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. We observed the use of nationally recognised assessment tools, such as those for assessing the risk of malnutrition, and staff followed advice and guidance from other health and social care professionals.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were clearly documented in their care plans, and dietary information was available in the kitchen to support staff in meeting individual needs. Care plans reflected personalised dietary preferences, including preferred dining arrangements. For example, 1 person chose to have breakfast in their room and lunch and supper in the dining room, while another preferred to sit with a friend.

Some relatives told us that when requests were made for drink options that differed from documented preferences, these were not always supported immediately. They reported that staff sometimes needed to check with nursing staff before providing alternatives. Staff and leaders explained this was to ensure choices were safe and appropriate, particularly where health conditions or prescribed medications might be affected.

We received feedback expressing concern that people who require encouragement or additional support during mealtimes may be at increased risk of not consistently receiving this assistance. However, during the inspection, we observed a robust process in place to ensure people received their preferred meals, with staff visibly supporting individuals where needed. Staff were able to clearly explain how they identified those requiring extra support and how this assistance was delivered in a respectful and discreet manner.

This reflected a considered approach to promoting dignity and nutritional wellbeing, while recognising the importance of continued vigilance to ensure consistency in support.

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.

Plans for transition, referral, and discharge considered people’s individual circumstances, ongoing care arrangements, and expected outcomes.

People confirmed they were supported to attend appointments with professionals, which promoted coordinated care and ensured their voices were heard. Tools such as hospital passports supported continuity and helped ensure that relevant information followed the person across services. Records demonstrated that people were supported to access a range of health and social care professionals. Such as Chiropody, GP and Physiotherapist. One relative told us, “[Person's name] had an annual assessment meeting, the Home were very open with them, shared the Care Plan for them to look at – they said they had no concerns.”

The provider worked well with other teams and services to support people and share important information. However, feedback from some professionals indicated that clinical advice was not always followed consistently, which meant that good coordination didn’t always lead to the best outcomes. This has been reported on in more detail under the ‘Monitoring and improving outcomes quality statement.’

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing in ways that maximised their independence, choice, and control. Staff helped people live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.

People told us they felt supported to improve their health. One person said, “Once I found I could lift my leg, I got a visit from the physio and set up an exercise programme and has tried to change my posture. I’m feeling so much better since being here.” Another shared, “I’ve seen somebody here about my eyes and my feet are looked after.” A relative told us, “[Person’s name] is practically bed bound since being in the hospital and they have gotten him out of bed with the hoist with 2 staff, am very pleased that they are doing this.” Other comments from relatives included, “Her care needs changed... I had a long chat with the manager” and “Family are well informed on his health. We are happy.”

Staff were able to describe how they worked with other professionals to support people in identifying and achieving positive outcomes. This included timely referrals, collaborative care planning, and monitoring of long-term conditions in partnership with health services.

This feedback reflects a proactive and person-centred approach to health and wellbeing. Staff understood people’s individual needs and preferences, responded to changes, and worked collaboratively to promote positive outcomes.

While systems were in place to monitor care and treatment, these were not always applied consistently. Feedback from professionals highlighted variability in staff responsiveness to clinical recommendations and in their ability to support individuals to maintain or improve their health and wellbeing. Concerns shared included delays in implementing advice, limited follow-up communication, sourcing recommended specialist equipment, and gaps in staff knowledge around basic clinical practices such as pressure area care and therapeutic support.

There were also concerns that some individuals who had the potential to be more active were not consistently encouraged to do so. This may have impacted their wellbeing and missed opportunities to promote independence and engagement. In these instances, professionals felt that staff could have taken a more proactive approach to supporting individuals to meet their potential.

These shortfalls were further impacted by the inconsistent assessment of current needs. Where assessments were not regularly reviewed or updated, or lacked meaningful involvement from the individual, there was a risk that care did not reflect the person’s evolving circumstances. This limited the provider’s ability to monitor progress effectively, respond to changes in health, and deliver care that was truly person-centred. Without accurate and up-to-date assessments, opportunities to improve outcomes may have been missed, and care may not have aligned with best practice or individual goals.

While these shortfalls highlighted areas for improvement, there were also some examples of effective monitoring and positive outcomes. Some relatives confirmed, and records reviewed demonstrated, that some health needs were monitored and responded to appropriately. Comments included, “I think they are meeting his care needs”, “His weight was being maintained—they were keeping an eye on that”, “Never had any concerns. His blood thinners changed, and we got a call from the doctor. The Home is monitoring him and totally on it”, “They are careful with his food as he has diabetes and injections; they react straight away and check daily” and “He cannot move himself and had massive bed sores, but due to their nursing… they reduced the sores and none returned.”

Staff described working collaboratively with health professionals and using a range of tools to support clinical monitoring. This approach was intended to help maintain people’s health, wellbeing, and dignity, and demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement. However, this description was not always reflected in professional feedback, which highlighted inconsistencies in how clinical advice was implemented. Although some professionals had noted some recent improvements in communication and responsiveness, particularly linked to the deputy manager’s efforts to strengthen clinical oversight and follow-up.

The provider demonstrated a person-centred approach to consent in practice, with staff and leaders showing a clear understanding of people’s rights and preferences. People told us they were able to express their consent, understood what they were agreeing to, and felt their views were respected.

However, there were inconsistencies in the records of some consent and Best Interests (BI) decisions. In one example, consent for photographs and care was signed by a staff member on behalf of a person without a corresponding Mental Capacity Assessment (MCA) or BI record. Broader concerns were identified in MCA and BI documentation, including insufficient detail, unclear timing of assessments, and retrospective entries. Such as in relation to decisions to self-administer medicines and consent to care and treatment. This undermined the provider’s ability to demonstrate that people had been fully involved in decision-making.

The lack of clarity around whether assessments were reviewed, recorded as new entries, or uploaded retrospectively without clear timestamps compromised the integrity of the provider’s MCA and BI processes. While the provider showed a commitment to respecting people’s rights in practice, the failure to consistently follow and record appropriate legal processes meant they could not reliably evidence that consent was always obtained in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

In response to feedback, the provider gave assurances that action would be taken to address the concerns identified. Leaders acknowledged the shortfalls and demonstrated a willingness to improve systems and processes to ensure people’s rights around consent were consistently upheld and appropriately documented.