During an assessment under our new approach
St Ives Lodge Residential Care Home is a care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 36 people, including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, 35 people were living at the service. The home comprises three units. There were communal gardens around the building, which were accessible for people.
The service provides care and support to people with a range of needs, including dementia and other care and support needs.
We carried out this assessment on 4 and 11 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People told us they felt safe and well cared for. Relatives were positive about the care provided and described staff as caring and professional. During our assessment, we saw staff interacting positively with people and providing support in a calm and respectful manner.
The service had arrangements in place to identify and manage risks to people’s health and safety. Care plans and risk assessments were maintained electronically and reflected people’s individual needs. We reviewed arrangements for people at increased risk of falls and found measures such as increased observations, support with mobility, lowered beds and falls alarm mats. Falls were monitored and analysed, with actions identified following incidents.
Staffing arrangements were sufficient to meet people’s needs across the 3 units. Staff were deployed according to people’s dependency and support requirements. We observed staff providing assistance during meals, activities and throughout the day. Staff told us they felt there were enough staff to provide the care people required and that management were available to support them.
Staff had appropriate training and support for their roles. We reviewed staff records and found evidence of appropriate recruitment checks, induction, training, supervision and appraisal. Staff had completed training relevant to the people they supported, including safeguarding, medicines, moving and handling, dementia and infection prevention and control.
Medicines were generally managed safely. Medicines were stored securely and administration was recorded using the electronic medicines system. Controlled drugs were appropriately managed and stock balances were checked. We identified some gaps in the management of ‘when required’ (PRN) medicines, as PRN protocols were not consistently available to guide staff about when these medicines should be administered. We also identified that, for some people receiving medicines covertly, the required authorisation was not fully evidenced at the time of our assessment. The provider responded promptly to our findings, reviewing PRN arrangements and obtaining the outstanding authorisation. Evidence of the actions taken was subsequently provided to us.
The home was clean and well maintained. We observed communal areas and people’s bedrooms to be clean and tidy. Our walk-around did not identify obvious trip hazards. Measures were in place in bedrooms for people at increased risk of falls.
People were supported to take part in activities and spend time with others. We observed group activities where people engaged well, with staff encouraging participation and interaction. The service also provided opportunities for relatives to visit and participate in social activities.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
Overall, we found the service continued to provide a good standard of care. People experienced care that was safe, caring and responsive to their individual needs. The registered manager and staff demonstrated a commitment to providing good quality care and responding to areas where improvements were identified.