Higher Park Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to the governance and oversight of the service. Not enough improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 57 (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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service had regular team meetings, and handovers between each shift, to support the service team in working together. However, there was no provider level strategy about the type of service the provider wanted to deliver to a good standard. For example, there was no written shared vision or set of values the provider, managers and staff were working towards together, and no business development plan to show plans to invest in or develop the quality of the service.

Not all leaders of the service understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively.

Service leaders told us they cared about people and the service and wanted to get it right. However, change and learning had been limited since our last assessment in June 2025. We continued to find care was inadequate in some areas of the service, as we still found multiple issues which affected peoples experience and safety.

Service leaders lacked significant knowledge about current best practice, for example in training needs and dementia care.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff felt comfortable with the management team and said they would be able to raise concerns to the management team about the quality and safety of the service. Staff had raised concerns which had been acted upon by the management of the service.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The registered manager and provider had delivered a supportive and inclusive working environment for the staff.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The governance of the service had not addressed all the failures in the quality of the service. Though there were some audits being carried out these had failed to identify the continued issues we found during this assessment. Therefore, opportunities to identify and improve the safety and quality of the service continued to be missed. These failings in governance systems and processes meant people were not getting the quality of service they deserved.

The administration of the service had improved since our last assessment in June 2025 but there continued to be areas where audit, and recording was poor. For example, in the environment and fixtures in the building, people’s activities and choices, and complaint investigations.

The provider did not always work in partnership. They did not always work to obtain information and learning from partners to collaborate for improvement.

The service had not engaged effectively with the community and partners in the health and social care system to obtain learning and, by doing so, improve the quality of their service. The service leadership was not taking advantage of the opportunities offered by their Local Authority to receive learning. However, some partnerships with the health and social care system were operating adequately. For example, the service said they were working well with the local health system, when taking people directly discharged from the local hospital into their care.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning and improvement across the organisation. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, and effective practice.

The service had not obtained enough knowledge to be aware of best practice in the delivery of a registered care service. As a result, the service had not been learning or improving.

The service had a system of surveying for people and relatives to give feedback on the service. However, the survey system was ineffective as few responses had been received from the last survey in October 2025. These survey results and other feedback had not led to the necessary improvement in the service.