The Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
 

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were treated with kindness, and compassion. Staff demonstrated a caring and respectful approach in their interactions which promoted people’s dignity and privacy. This remained consistent with previous inspections and demonstrated sustained strength in practice.

People and relatives spoke positively about staff attitudes. One person told us, “They’re very good to us here,” reflecting consistent positive experiences of care.

Staff understood the importance of dignity and privacy and described how they maintained this in practice, including supporting people in a respectful and discreet manner during personal care.

Although there were some concerns found in care documentation being reflective of people’s current needs, this did not detract from the caring approach demonstrated by staff on a day to day basis.
 

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences.

Although staff knew people well and delivered personalised care in practice, care planning did not consistently reflect individual preferences and needs. This created a risk of inconsistent delivery, particularly for new staff. Improvements were required to ensure person-centred care was fully embedded within records.

Although most staff knew people well and described understanding their preferences and routines, this was not always reflected in care records. Care plans did not consistently capture people’s individual needs, risks associated with their health conditions, which limited their effectiveness as a tool to guide personalised care.

This resulted in some inconsistencies in how care was delivered, particularly where staff relied on verbal knowledge rather than documented information.

A relative highlighted this gap, stating, “They know [my family member], but it’s not always written down properly.” While staff demonstrated a person-centred approach in practice, systems did not consistently support this, and people were not always treated as individuals in a structured and reliable way.
 

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control in some aspects of their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to make day-to-day choices and have control over their lives. Staff promoted people to make decisions about their daily routines and whether they wished to attend activities. People told us they enjoyed the arts and crafts, singers and birthday parties at the service. Records showed people had been supported to access the community for shopping, visits to cafes, meals out and the local pub.

Staff described encouraging independence where possible and supporting people to maintain their abilities and life skills. One staff member explained, “We try and let them do as much as they can for themselves.”

Staff told us people were supported to select meal choices in the mornings. Our observations showed people were provided with a choice of hot or cold meals at lunchtime. There was evidence that people had requested different meals and the service had adapted to provide these in line with people’s likes and preferences.
 

Staff responded promptly to people’s immediate needs and demonstrated awareness of people’s comfort and wellbeing during the inspection.

People were observed receiving timely support, and staff were attentive to signs of distress or discomfort, responding appropriately to reassure and support individuals.

People told us they felt listened to and supported when they needed assistance. One person said, “If I need anything, they come straight away,” reflecting responsiveness in day-to-day care delivery. Staff understood people’s emotional needs and responded in the moment, particularly where people required regular reassurance.
 

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff spoke positively about teamwork and support from colleagues. One staff member told us, “We’re like a family here,” reflecting a supportive team culture.

There were also mixed experiences of leadership support, with some staff feeling well-supported and others highlighting inconsistencies in communication and leadership visibility.