Weaver 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last inspection we rated this key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained as good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessment and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. 

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

During the inspection we observed staff interactions with patients and staff showed that they were responsive and supportive to patient requests. Staff were knowledgeable about patients, they understood their individual needs, and care and treatment was informed by their knowledge of the patient. Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients.

Patients were encouraged to attend their MDT meetings, and during the meetings we observed that staff involved patients in discussions, and patients mostly felt that they could give feedback on their care and treatment. However, one patient felt that they were not always listened to, particularly by doctors, and felt there was a lack of treatment choice with their medication. 

Patients told us that staff were caring and compassionate and provided advice and support when they needed it. The patients we spoke with felt they could discuss their care, and the daily mornings meetings allowed them to raise any concerns they may have about the service with staff. We observed one of these meetings during the inspection and saw that patients felt confident to engage with the meetings, and patients were encouraged to decide their day’s activities and given reminders about things going on in the service. 

During the inspection we observed that staff knew the clients and had a respectful and kind attitude towards them. we observed a group activity session where  staff engaged positively with patients and tried to explore patient’s interest in a supportive manner. Patients had access to activities as there was an activity timetable present on the ward. However, levels of engagement appeared to be quite low as patients generally preferred their own individual routine and the service had had a period without an occupational therapist. Staff were conscious of the low engagement and were trying to encourage patients to get involved. Staff had knowledge of the service and were aware of patients’ rehabilitation goals and journey. 

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. 

Staff could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences and did so when required. 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments for disabled people entering the service. The service was all on one level with a paved outdoor area and wide corridors to support access. When patients required access to mobility aids, such as walkers, staff were able to provide them. Staff also had access to translation services when patients required them, for example, one patient had a translator attend their MDT meetings, as English was not their first language, this supported their understanding of the more complex discussions in the meeting. Managers confirmed they were able to request leaflets and information in other languages and accessible formats as required. However, during a workbook activity, one patient whose first language was not English only had access to the booklet in English.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. During admission staff reviewed patient’s dietary requirements and preferences with them, and food options were discussed during community meetings. Patients also had access to a ‘shop and cook’ programme through OT, with a budget to shop for food and then cook a meal with staff. Budgets were individualised to the patients and reflected where they were in their rehabilitation. 

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support, one patient confirmed that they could attend church when they wanted to. 

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Patients’ social needs were understood by the service, and individuals were supported to maintain and develop relationships with those close to them. Patients and carers we spoke with said the service facilitated visits from family and friends, and there was a clear process in place for them. However, one carer we spoke with said they felt the service did not engage well with the family, for example MDT meetings being held at short notice and families not being involved. 

Patients were supported to engage with the wider community during their leave, and where appropriate patients were encouraged to get involved in volunteer and work opportunities. For example, one patient we spoke with had a goal to volunteer with animal shelter. 

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

During the inspection we found one patient who did not have a risk assessment in place, despite the risk having been identified 4 weeks previously in an MDT meeting. This meant that staff would not have been able to respond to this risk safely and appropriately. This was raised during the inspection, and staff completed a risk assessment for the patient.

Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. Staff felt confident to manage aggression safely and supported patients well. There was a focus within the hospital to build up therapeutic relationships with patients, and staff worked with patients early in admission to establish how to support individuals safely. 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The staff we spoke with felt respected, supported and valued. They spoke highly of the new senior leadership within the service, and the changes that they had made to the service. Staff were proud of the work they did in the service and were highly motivated to provide high-quality care and rehabilitation. Staff were focused on making improvements to the service, and leaders encouraged them to do this. During the inspection we observed a staff meeting, in which managers gave updates on current work within the service, checking patient wellbeing, and confirming if staff needed any additional support. Staff were also highlighted for praise during the meeting for recent work or initiatives they had introduced. 

Staff we spoke with told us about opportunities for career development within the service. Support workers had discussed the opportunities to complete nursing training, and nursing staff within the service had completed their degree with support from providers. Also to support the occupational therapy within the service, managers had planned for staff with a special interest to support the OT with activities. Although this role would remain in the support worker staffing, they would be taken out of the numbers to effectively support the OT and learn more about the role. 

Staff were able to work flexibly, where possible, such as working short days to support staff who had caring responsibilities. 

Between July 2025 and June 2026, the average sickness rate in the service was 6.28%, managers analysed sickness for any themes and had taken action to address this. For example, staff were offered wellbeing support, occupational health referrals and regular wellbeing discussion to identify ongoing support needs. Staff turnover during this period was 26.47%, which reflected significant workforce and leadership changes within the service which had led to inconsistency. In the last 6 months this had begun to stabilise with successful recruitment to roles, and a focus on staff retention through consistent leadership, clear expectations, career development opportunities, wellbeing support, and positive staff engagement. 

Through the provider, there were a number of schemes to support staff wellbeing, such as salary sacrifice schemes, discount schemes, and financial and emotional wellness programmes. 

The service also had an action plan in place to address feedback from the 2025 staff survey. This included stabilising management within the service and providing staff opportunities for career development, which we received positive feedback about from staff during the inspection. The ongoing focus area on the action plan, was positive structure for staff to be able to showcase their skills, we also saw the positive effects of this culture change.