The 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider did complete pre assessment documentation with people, before they came into The Lodge, however we did identify that not all needs were documented within the time frames as set within the homes admissions policy. For example, 1 person did not have the required risk assessments and care plan in place for all aspects of their needs. Their Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEPS) was completed 3 days after their admission to the home during the weekend. This meant that in the event of a fire, staff would not have had sufficient information to safely support this person. The provider was responsive to our feedback and have changed their processes for admissions over a weekend period.

Staff confirmed they were kept informed of any changes to people’s needs via handovers and communication via the electronic systems for care plans and daily notes.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

For example, the provider used tools such as Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) which is a widely used tool in care settings to identify adults at risk of malnutrition. People’s weights were being recorded regularly, and appropriate external referrals were made when required.

The provider worked well 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.

Staff were encouraged to attend staff meetings and the feedback we received from staff was positive around information sharing and that the team worked well together. Comments included, “Structured handovers take place at every shift, allowing staff to share important updates and discuss any changes in residents’ conditions Urgent updates are communicated promptly as they arise, ensuring that we remain well informed at all times” and “This home isn’t just megoing to work. This home is like going to my 2nd home, the fun laughter with residents makes my whole day everyone supports everyone.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People had access to external healthcare professionals when needed such as district nurses and GPs and referrals were completed when required. The provider supported people’s wellbeing by offering a range of activities and outdoor access within the home’s garden, which was well maintained and bright and colourful. Staff understood the importance of people having access to meaningful activities. One staff member told us, “The residents at The Lodge are looked after really well, they do lots to keep busy, games, puzzles, quizzes, and outside activities. There is always something going on for people.” We observed staff responding to people’s needs and activities were taking place during our onsite inspection.

The provider had ‘hydration stations’ around the home, where people could access various drinks and snacks such as biscuits and fruit throughout the day.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had monitoring systems in place, for example weight monitoring for people who experienced unintended weight loss or weight gain to ensure they were actively tracking their health and keeping them safe. Referrals were raised when required around care and support needs such as weight loss and choking risks.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We observed people being offered choices and staff sought consent from people prior to supporting people, during our onsite inspection.

The provider had processes in place for ensuring that Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard [DoLS] had been applied for appropriately and were monitored and reviewed. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and DoLS.

The provider had completed Mental Capacity Assessments, and we saw evidence of people, their representatives and external healthcare professionals, being involved in decisions around care and support needs. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible; people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack capacity, any decisions made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. The provider ensured these assessments were being reviewed as appropriate.