Forest Lodge Care Home

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 was not rated as not enough evidence categories were assessed. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

When managing violence and aggression and where physical interventions or restraint needs to be used, a person must give their consent for this to happen. Where consent cannot be obtained a meeting with people involved in a person’s care should decide what is in the individual’s best interest. Neither the mental capacity assessment nor the best interest process was followed for the use of physical interventions for any of the cases we reviewed.

Additionally, we saw that the provider had assessed people’s capacity and deemed that many people were not able to decide for themselves about such things as using the community, their medicines and their money. In cases where people cannot make decisions in such aspects of their lives people involved in their care should be involved to assist with what is in the best interests of the person. Whilst in each case, capacity had been assessed, the best interest process in the care plans we reviewed was not fully followed.

This service scored 62 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their needs. There was a robust procedure in place for assessing people before they moved into the service. Care plans were reviewed regularly, with areas of a person’s life such as medicines, personal care, mobility and their mental health frequently assessed to ensure their changing needs could continue to be met.

During the course of our visits, we saw an assessment made by the speech and language therapy team in March 2025, who had assessed the person at being at risk of choking. The risk assessment that was updated on 15 May 2025 stated the person was not at risk of choking. We discussed this with a senior member of staff who updated the risk assessment during our inspection.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They used technology to aid people’s support such as call bell systems and sensor mats. Approaches to support were up to date and followed best practice in such things as support for people with dementia, people with acquired brain injuries and those with mental health conditions.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. The provider worked with other organisations in a multi-disciplinary manner. For example, they worked with health care professionals to support people’s needs. These included speech and language therapists, tissue viability nurses and GPs.

One professional we spoke to told us about the service’s promptness to refer people who they believe needed specific medical support. They talked about the staff team being supportive to the recommendations made to improve health outcomes, particularly given the complex nature of the needs of some of the people living in the service.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives to maintain good health and to remain active and get as much exercise as possible. During our visit we saw people engaged in chair exercises which included throwing a ball and catching it. People received food that was nutritious and had a balanced diet. People had access to a wide range of medical professionals that helped to address all of their health needs.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and met the expectations of people and their families. The service monitored people’s health, keeping clear records and sharing information of changes with relevant professionals. There was evidence that through monitoring people it meant that timely interventions happened, and unnecessary hospital admissions were avoided when people could be cared for at home by suitably qualified staff.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. The provider carried out mental capacity assessments on people to determine if they had capacity to make decisions about their care. We saw capacity decisions about accessing the community, taking medicines and their finances. However, in many cases people lacked capacity which the provider had clearly indicated but, in each case, the best interest decision process had not been followed.

The service supports people who can often become distressed and use violence and aggression as a means of communicating their frustrations. Physical interventions are used in such cases to keep people safe and their permission to use such interventions should be sought but, in the care plans we saw, capacity assessments did not exist.