- Care home
Healey Lodge Residential Home
We served a warning notice on Silverdale Care Homes Limited on 5 December 2025 for failing to ensure safe care and treatment and good governance at Healey Lodge.
Assessment report published 22 January 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Healey Lodge residential care home is a residential care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 24 older people, younger adults, people living with a dementia and people living with a learning disability. We assessed all quality statements under the five key questions of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led. We undertook site visits on 15 and 16 October 2025 and an out of hours site visit on the 21 October 2025.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
Incidents and accidents were not always well recorded and records relating to pressure care and hospital passports were not always robust. Risk assessments relating to people’s specific health conditions were not detailed enough to guide staff and risks to people were not managed well. The environment was not always safe and not all servicing records were readily available at the time of the assessment. Staff were not recruited safely and interview notes were either not completed or accurate. We found gaps in staff training and views on staffing levels were mixed. We found concerns relating to infection prevention and control and not all staff were aware of who had a DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) in place. People’s consent was sought as appropriate. Medicines were not being managed safely. Staff knew the process should someone fall and staff knew what to do should they have a safeguarding concern.
People’s goals and ambitions for the future were not recorded and not all relatives felt they would be informed when people’s needs changed. Distressed behaviours were not managed or recorded well and although people’s weights were being monitored, it was not clear what action was taken for those who were experiencing weight loss. Risk assessments relating to oral health were not detailed enough. People had their needs assessed prior to their admission to the service and a wide variety of food was on offer, taking into consideration people’s specific dietary needs.
Activities were not always person-centred and we saw no evidence of activities taking place during the weekend. Some concerns were raised in relation to staff communication and language barriers. People’s independence was encouraged and staff felt valued working at this service.
Care plans held conflicting information and required updating. Not all documents were available in accessible formats and we found concerns in relation to confidential information not being secured. Complaints were not always formally investigated and we saw no evidence of people or relative meetings taking place. Referrals were being made as necessary and staff spoke of how they would use different forms of communication to interact with people. Partners felt the service was accessible and people’s advanced wishes had been discussed as appropriate.
Work was needed to improve the culture of this service to ensure everyone was treated equally and fairly. The registered manager and nominated individual held conflicting views about this service and staff supervisions were not taking place frequently. A range of audits and quality checks were in place but did not pick up on the concerns identified during our assessment process. The provider was not always working in line with their own policies and there was limited evidence of lessons learnt processes. Staff were aware of the term freedom to speak up and told us the registered manager was approachable and knowledgeable. Partners felt the service worked well with them to ensure joined-up effective care.
We found 5 breaches of the legal regulation. The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, governance and fit and proper persons employed. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remains in breach of these legal regulations. The provider was also in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care and staffing.
In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
We obtained the views of people using this service by talking to them, talking to relatives and through observations. Relatives did not always feel risks were managed well and concerns were raised about the nurse call bells and the noise impact of this. We witnessed staff were not always available or responsive to people’s immediate needs and staff tended to sit with the same people throughout the day. Not everyone was involved in activities, and the same people were taken out most days. People spoke of how the TV room was dominated by sports.
Most relatives told us people were happy living at this service and that people’s admission to the service was managed well. We witnessed staff treating people well and people told us they felt safe using this service. People and relatives told us the environment was safe and relatives told us there was enough staff. Relatives were involved in people’s care plan reviews and relatives praised staff for encouraging their loved ones to eat and drink well. Relatives told us the registered manager was approachable and they felt listened to.