Haydock Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 81 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. For example, all incidents, accidents and relevant events were thoroughly analysed and followed by a full staff de‑brief. Where learning from incidents was identified, managers shared this promptly with staff, and any additional training needs were addressed without delay. Incident and accident records were also reviewed at weekly multidisciplinary senior leadership meetings to identify and monitor any emerging safety‑related themes. Staff were actively encouraged to engage in the learning process and apply improvements to enhance safety and reduce the risk of harm to people using the service. One member of staff told us, “If there are any incidents, we sit down with the manager to discuss and learn from them. We then always share this in handovers and team meetings with the wider team.”

The provider always worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was always well managed and monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. For example, managers took a highly proactive approach to preparing for each person’s arrival. Managers engaged early with individuals, their families and external professionals to ensure transitions were smooth, well planned and tailored to the person’s unique needs. This level of preparation meant staff had a comprehensive understanding of each person’s history, preferences, risks and aspirations before they entered the service, allowing personalised support to be in place from the moment they arrived.

When people were ready to move on to another of the provider’s units as part of their planned care pathway, the service carried out a detailed formulation meeting. These meetings ensured that every aspect of the person’s care including clinical requirements, communication preferences, routines, likes, dislikes and what was most important to them was fully explored and communicated. As a result, transitions were managed exceptionally well, minimising anxiety and ensuring the receiving team could deliver safe, consistent and genuinely individualised support.

The registered manager provided records confirming that, over the past 12 months, 14 people had successfully moved on from Haydock Lodge, either by returning to their own homes or by progressing through their planned care pathways.

The manager shared documented success stories illustrating how the well‑managed transition process supported people to achieve meaningful goals, including securing work placements and increased independence.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. For example, people were kept safe from the risk of harm or abuse. Any concerns or incidents were reported properly and shared via local procedures.

Managers took a proactive approach to safeguarding and understood the risks and early warning signs to look out for. Staff had up‑to‑date safeguarding training and knew what to do if they had a concern. One member of staff told us, “I understand the safeguarding process and how to report a safeguarding. We’ve all had the right training.”

The provider worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. For example, the registered manager completed a thorough and detailed pre‑admission assessment with the person and their family. This helped everyone identify the person’s needs, preferences and any potential risks together. Records clearly showed the person’s wishes, what was important to them, and the goals they hoped to achieve were at the centre of this process.

The registered manager held care plan reviews, bringing together the person, staff and health professionals. During these reviews, they agreed practical and achievable goals, such as building independence in cooking, budgeting or personal care. Any risks linked to these goals were discussed openly, and decisions were made together about how to reduce or manage them safely. Risk assessments were proactive and preventative, identifying early indicators of potential deterioration and enabling timely intervention, which contributed to a reduction in incidents and avoidable harm.

There was a strong culture of openness across the service. Staff were encouraged to think creatively about people’s safety and support plans, always looking for the least restrictive and most empowering option. People were supported to live meaningful and fulfilling lives, with independence understood not just as physical ability, but also emotional wellbeing, confidence and personal growth. Staff also provided specialist support for people whose mental health, substance misuse or alcohol use affected their ability to stay safe. They worked sensitively with individuals to help them understand their risks and strengthen their ability to manage day‑to‑day challenges.

The provider was fully aware of all potential risks in the care environment and controlled them well. They made sure equipment and facilities consistently supported the delivery of safe care. For example, health and safety checks were routinely completed, and managers maintained full oversight of all required servicing schedules, maintenance records and statutory certificates. The registered manager completed regular audits of the premises and equipment safety checks, ensuring that gas, electrical, water safety, and lifting equipment certifications were always up to date.

Managers managed fire safety particularly well, completing and regularly reviewing fire risk assessments and implementing clear action plans promptly when required. The environment was equipped with appropriate fire detection systems, signage and evacuation equipment. All staff had received fire safety training and demonstrated a clear understanding of emergency procedures. Regular fire drills and checks ensured both people and staff were confident in how to respond in the event of an emergency.

People had exceptional personalised Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPs). These were detailed, person‑centred and reflected individuals’ specific abilities, mobility, communication needs and preferred support. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s PEEPs and could clearly explain their responsibilities, which ensured people could be supported to evacuate safely, promptly and with dignity if needed.

For individuals with a range of physical or personal care needs, we saw innovative and thoughtful adaptations which enhanced privacy, mobility, accessibility and safety. These included bespoke layout changes and assistive features which ensured people had sufficient space for essential aids and equipment. As a result, people were able to move around their homes and manage their daily routines with greater ease, confidence and independence.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care to meet people’s individual needs. For example, staff received effective support through regular supervision, ongoing development opportunities and approachable management. People were supported by key staff who had developed strong, trusting relationships with them.

Recruitment systems were safe and robust, with all necessary pre‑employment checks completed before staff began working in the service. Training records showed staff were up to date with all required training, including specialist training where needed.

Staff spoke positively about working in the service and the support they received, telling us they loved working at Haydock Lodge and described the registered manager and deputy manager as very supportive. One staff member told us, ‘I can go to them with anything – the door is always open.’ On person told us, ‘I like the staff, they are really helpful, I have a good relationship with them.’

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. For example, the home had an up‑to‑date IPC policy in place which reflected current guidance and best practice. Staff received appropriate IPC training and clearly understood their roles and responsibilities in maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene within the home.

People told us staff consistently followed procedures and used personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly. The management team carried out regular PPE audits to ensure standards were maintained and staff continued to follow safe practice. Where it was safe and appropriate, staff encouraged people to be involved in household chores and helped them learn about the importance of maintaining a clean and hygienic home.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. For example, managers took an active role in medicines reviews and risk assessments, ensuring people’s treatment remained appropriate and person‑centred. Care records clearly detailed each person’s prescribed medicines and were updated promptly following any changes. The registered manager completed regular medication audits to monitor practice, and daily checks had also been introduced for staff to further strengthen safety and oversight. PRN (as‑required) protocols were clear, detailed, and provided staff with specific guidance on when and how to administer these medicines safely. Appropriate risk assessments were in place for people with specific health needs, supporting safe and individualised medicines management.