You are here

Archived: Wesley Lodge Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 8 October 2016

Wesley Lodge is a care home for up to eight people who have a learning disability, physical disability and complex needs. On the day of the inspection eight people were living in the home.

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 20 September 2016.

The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager assisted us with our inspection on the day.

There was a kind, caring atmosphere in the home where staff displayed an inclusive attitude towards people. Relatives were happy with the care provided. Staff supported people to take part in various activities and staff were attentive to people to help ensure that activities were individualised and meaningful to people.

People had care responsive to their needs and staff knew people extremely well. People who had dietary requirements received appropriate foods and people could choose which foods they had. Staff followed the guidance of healthcare professionals where appropriate and involved healthcare professionals to help ensure people received effective care.

Staff provided care in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Records demonstrated that people’s rights were protected as staff acted in accordance with the MCA when specific decisions needed to be made. Where there were restrictions in place appropriate applications had been submitted to the supervisory body in relation to this.

Staff followed correct and appropriate procedures in administering medicines and medicines were stored safely. Care was provided to people by staff who were trained and received relevant support from their manager. This included regular supervisions and appraisals. Staff told us they felt valued by the registered manager and they worked together well as a team.

Staff understood their role in safeguarding people. They had received training and demonstrated a good understanding of how they would protect people from abuse or potential harm. Staff routinely carried out risk assessments and created plans to minimise known hazards whilst encouraging people’s independence.

In the event of an emergency where the home would have to close, there was a contingency plan in place to help ensure people’s care would continue uninterrupted.

There were sufficient staff in the home to help ensure people received the care and support they required when they required it. This included enabling people to attend their activities. Good recruitment processes were in place to ensure that those staff who were providing the care were suitable to be working in such a setting.

Care plans contained detailed information to guide staff on how someone wished to be cared for. Information included detail around people’s mobility, food and personal care needs. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and backgrounds as detailed in their care plans.

Quality assurance checks were carried out to help ensure the environment was a safe place for people to live and they received a good quality of care. Staff were involved in the running of the home as regular staff meetings were held and they were encouraged to give their feedback. Relatives and other stakeholders were given the opportunity to provide feedback on the care provided through surveys. Relatives told us they told us if they had any concerns they would have no hesitation in speaking with the registered manager.

It was evident the registered manager had good management oversight and staff, relatives and professionals felt the home was well managed. The registered manager was keen to improve the quality of care provided.

Inspection areas



Updated 8 October 2016

The service was safe.

People’s risks were assessed and recorded and staff were able to describe people’s risks to us.

The provider ensured there were enough staff on duty to meet the people’s needs. The provider carried out appropriate checks when employing new staff.

Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and knew how to report any concerns.

People received the medicines they required.

There was a plan in place should the home have to be evacuated.



Updated 8 October 2016

The service was effective.

Staff had a good understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and followed the legal requirements in relation to the Mental Capacity Act.

People were provided with food and drink which supported them to maintain a healthy diet.

Staff were trained to ensure they could deliver care based on best practices. Staff were supported by management.

People received effective care and staff ensured people had access to external healthcare professionals when they needed it.



Updated 8 October 2016

The service was caring

People were treated with kindness and attentive care, respect and dignity.

Staff respected people’s own decisions and encouraged them to be independent.

Relatives felt involved in their family members care and were happy with the care provided.



Updated 8 October 2016

The service was responsive.

People were supported to take part in daily activities appropriate to their needs and choices.

Care plans contained relevant and detailed information about the care people required.

Relatives knew how to make a complaint.



Updated 8 October 2016

The service was well-led.

The registered manager was responsive and continually looking for ways to improve the service.

Quality assurance audits were carried out to help ensure a high quality of care and safe home.

Staff felt supported and valued by the registered manager and relatives felt the home was well managed.

Everyone was involved in the running of the home and feedback obtained was used to improve the service.