Higher Park Lodge

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulations in relation to providing person centred care, and the governance and oversight of the service. Not enough improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of these regulations.

This service scored 54 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service had a new IT system to support the delivery of care which was introduced in October 2025. This provided an improved electronic structure for peoples care planning and care recording.

People’s weight was now being recorded regularly. People were having regular weight measurements taken to inform the setting of their pressure relieving mattress to ensure effectiveness.

People who were at risk if they did not eat and drink enough had not always had these care needs adequately assessed. For example, care plans lacked objectives of how much nutrition and fluid intake the person should aim to consume daily. Though the new IT system had been introduced these objectives had not yet been put in place for those who needed this support with their eating and drinking.

People’s social, emotional and welfare care needs were not being assessed. There was no format in the new IT system to cover these areas of peoples’ lives. People did not yet have individual plans for activities inside and outside the home based on their choices and preferences.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The service was now adequately meeting care needs related to pressure area care, nutrition, and weight monitoring. For example, care records for people who needed to be moved by staff to protect their skin from pressure damage were completed and reflected the frequency of movement required by the person’s care plan. When people needed to receive creams to support their skin tissue viability this was being recorded as taking place. Where people required regular weight monitoring, both to monitor a person’s weight to avoid malnutrition and to ensure their pressure relieving mattress was appropriately set, this was now taking place. These actions helped to maintain the person’s skin tissue viability and prevent skin tissue breakdown.

Some people had their food and drink intake recorded to monitor they were getting enough nutrition and hydration. We saw these records reflected people were receiving enough food and drinks. However, these records were not yet fully accurate.

Peoples’ care was not being planned and delivered to meet the needs of the whole person, including the planning and provision of social and stimulating activities to meet an individual’s needs.

The provider worked 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.

The service was working with discharge services at the local NHS hospital, their GP practice, and primary care health services. Information was obtained by the management of the service before a person was accepted into the care home to ensure they were able to meet their needs.

The service worked with external professionals to support people. For example, the GP practice which supported the service, spoke with the service managers weekly to review anyone whose health was causing concern.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Some people needed to have their weight, nutrition and risk of choking closely monitored. There was now clarity among the management team about who needed their food specially prepared in line with their assessed needs. There were written directions on specialist diets in people’s care plans, for those who needed their food appropriately prepared to prevent risk of choking.

The service was working to improve food availability for people. The service had introduced a snack bar in the lounge which held a wide variety of food snacks. Also, a tea trolley was to be taken around the home by staff to everyone at least once a day. This trolley held drinks and snacks. However, the tea trolley was not taken around during our first visit and people told us this had also not happened on other days.

A 2 week rolling menu for the main meal of the day was in place. The main meal was seen to be of adequate quality and size. People told us they were getting enough food and that it was of reasonable quality. However, people also told us there was not enough choice of food. When we began the assessment there were no records of people being offered food choices, but this record was in place by the end of this assessment.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive andconsistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Governance and audit processes were now identifying where people’s care recording was incomplete. For example, when people were immobile and needed to be repositioned frequently on their mattress to maintain their skin integrity. However, people’s care was not being planned and recorded consistently or in detail to show how all of a person’s needs were being met. People continued to comment that there was not enough to do, although the service had introduced activity staff to facilitate stimulating activities.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

There was no planned approach to dementia care in use in the service, based on research and best practice. Staff and leadership had only very limited knowledge and skills in the delivery of dementia care. People with dementia were not going outside the building regularly as they needed staff support to do so safely. There was no signage in the building to help people who lacked capacity to find rooms important to them, such as their bedroom, bathroom and toilet facilities.

The service had a Mental Capacity Act (MCA) Policy that covered all aspects of the MCA. All those who needed to have a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) in place for their own safety had had one applied for by the service to the Local Authority.Though the management of the service now understood Best Interests processes under the MCA for the imposition of some necessary safety restrictions, their discussions with people’s relatives and their recording of these meetings, were not yet taking place.