You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 29 January 2020

About the service:

Ebor Lodge is in the west of Hull. The home has three floors which are accessed via stairs. Additionally, there is a stair lift to reach the first floor. There are two communal lounge areas and a dining room, two bathrooms and a kitchen. Some bedrooms are shared, and others are for single occupancy.

The home is registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 13 people who have mental health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were 11 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

It was clear from the findings at this inspection, the quality of the service people received had improved and was good. Enough improvement had been made to meet the requirements of the regulations. However, we were unable to evidence new governance systems were truly embedded into practise. Future inspection will seek to evidence systems of governance are fully reflective, transparent and robust.

People were protected from harm and abuse as the staff team had been trained to recognise potential signs of abuse and understood what to do. People had information on how to raise concerns and were confident any issues would be addressed correctly.

In the main recruitment processes were effective. However, we found a gap in one staff recruitment file that was not picked up by the provider or the audit process. The provider took immediate action to prevent this happening again. Medicine administration systems were of good quality. Enough staff were employed to meet people's individual needs. New staff received an induction. Staff received training, supervision and appraisal, which was up to date. The home was clean and tidy with no unpleasant odours. Further work to improve the decoration of the home was planned for 2020.

People and their relatives said staff were caring and respected their privacy and dignity. People felt the service they received helped to maintain their independence where possible. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Several activities and outings into the community were available to people. Activities were person-centred and meaningful to people.

People and staff felt the provider and management team were supportive and approachable. Staff were happy in their role which had a positive effect on people's wellbeing. The provider and staff all demonstrated a desire to improve the quality of care provided. People, relatives, staff and visiting professionals had regular opportunities to express their views about the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection and update:

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 13 December 2018) and there were two breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas



Updated 29 January 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 29 January 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 29 January 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 29 January 2020

The service was not responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 29 January 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.