Higher Park Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to the failure to maintain people’s dignity. 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 50 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care was not being planned or recorded to show how people’s social, emotional and welfare needs were to be met. There was no format within the IT care system to assess or plan to meet these needs. This meant the person’s care and support was not being planned in a person centred way.

People’s personal preferences had not been gathered by the service, and people told us their choices were not being supported. For example, their choice of food or activities, such as going out of the building. People told us again they wanted to go outside, as they had done at our previous assessment in June 2025, but they needed staff support to do this. People said the opportunity was never offered and so they did not either go out into the outside areas at Higher Park Lodge, or to the public park next to the home.

People’s care plans did not have any information about their personal preferences in any area of their lives. We were told that a key worker system was to be started by the service. This system would appoint specific named staff members to advocate on behalf of every person that used the service. These key workers would then spend time with people identifying people’s preferences in all aspects of their lives.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service had no website to provide information about the service to the public and to direct the public to the present CQC rating and report. All providers of publicly funded adult social care must follow the Accessible Information Standard in line with section 250 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The service was now complying with this standard.

If people’s first language was not English, the service relied on the service’s Information Technology (IT) to translate the existing information into the person’s preferred language. No information was presently available in any other languages or formats, including Braille or in an audio format.

Everyone now had a folder of information in their room and within this a ‘resident handbook’ containing some basic information about the service. This information about the service was now given to people or their relatives before or after they entered the service.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was a complaints process in place and we saw at our previous assessment in June 2025, some complaints had been formally investigated in early 2025.At this assessment no written record of investigations or outcomes could be found for investigations that took place throughout 2025. Therefore, it could not be shown that where people raised concerns or complaints they had been investigated, and people then responded to about their concerns and changes made to their care where appropriate.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.