Autumn 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 79 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

There was a robust assessment process in place before people moved into the home. This included considering people’s needs around communication, their physical and mental health, and any risks such as falls history. This was then used to shape their care plan. Information important to people was also gathered, and likes, dislikes and preferences were recorded as early as possible. The provider told us, “It’s not just about meeting people’s needs, we look at the fit for the person, and for others already living here. It’s their home and it’s important that all aspects are carefully assessed.”

Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected any changes in people’s needs or preferences. One relative told us, “I’m involved in [person’s] care, they always contact me and we talk, I’m in here regularly. I trust them.” Any changes were viewable immediately on the electronic system and they were also discussed at regular handovers.

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.

The provider used recognised assessment tools to help identify needs, monitor risks, and review support arrangements. This ensured care was safe, personalised, and responsive to changing circumstances, helping people achieve the best possible outcomes. Care and treatment was consistently planned and delivered in accordance with best practice guidance and evidence-based standards. Staff worked closely with people to ensure their preferences, needs, and priorities remained at the centre of all care and support decisions.

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 had strong working relationships with visiting professionals to the home. These were essential in achieving the best outcomes for people. The home had a weekly ward round with a professional from the local GP surgery where any concerns regarding health and wellbeing could be discussed. The provider was proactive in maintaining relationships with more specific support services such as the Care Home In-Reach Team and Occupational Therapists (OTs). During the inspection we saw an OT supporting a person to improve their mobility. People and their relatives told us they had access to healthcare professionals when needed. One relative said, “They always let me know if [person] is not well, they get the doctor in if needed.”

Visiting professionals told us, “They are very organised, professional, caring and have great understanding of their service users. The home always seems well organised, and the carers are always working to a high standard, as far as I see.” Another added, “Staff liaise with us when an individual's needs are particularly complex, ensuring a collaborative approach.”

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

Staff were proactive in supporting people to lead healthier lives, with a strong focus on prevention, wellbeing and maintaining independence. People and their relatives were encouraged and empowered to take an active role in decisions about their health and to pursue goals that were meaningful to them. For example, one person wanted to improve their mobility so they could participate more fully in activities outside the home. Staff supported the person to access an Occupational Therapist to improve their strength. Staff also supported short walks outside, in line with people’s needs, to improve confidence as well as physical ability. This resulted in people having more time outside and an improvement in their mental health.

Staff ensured people had access to the healthcare services and specialist input they required, however they also understood the importance of avoiding unnecessary use of medicines. The home worked with a bio-psychosocial approach model and aimed to continuously reduce the use of psychotropic medicines. One person’s medicines had been reduced to ‘as and when’ rather than regularly being given, which reduced drowsiness and the person's risk of falls and enabling the person to engage in more activities. One visiting professional told us, “I believe they have developed an excellent working relationship with the GP surgery regarding the review and reduction of psychotropic medication. This has been vital for improving people’s outcomes.”

The home offered a wide range of activities which supported good physical health. For example, weekly bike rides, armchair exercise sessions and yoga. These were all well attended and helped to promote and maintain people's health, maximise mobility and enable them to remain as independent as possible.

Mealtimes were recognised as an important part of daily life and were used not only to meet people's nutritional needs but also to promote enjoyment, social interaction and wellbeing. This reflected the provider's genuinely person-centred approach to care. People’s nutritional intake was closely monitored and the chef proactively fortified people's diets in ways that were acceptable to them. For example, they had developed an in-house recipe for ‘fat shots’ which was a high calorie snack that people could enjoy improving their weight. People spoke positively about the quality of the food and the choices available.

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.

Staff used an electronic monitoring system to maintain oversight of key aspects of people’s care and support, tailored to their individual needs, preferences, and goals. The system was used to monitor areas including nutrition, hydration, and changes in mood, behaviour, or overall presentation. This enabled staff to identify patterns, recognise emerging concerns, and respond promptly to changes in people’s needs, ensuring support remained timely, responsive, and person-centred.

Staff demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting people to achieve positive outcomes and maintain a good quality of life. Through ongoing monitoring, regular review, and proactive intervention, people received care that promoted their health, wellbeing, independence, and overall quality of life.

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

People’s capacity to consent to different aspects of their care had been assessed and recorded. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions, best interests decisions were made in line with relevant guidance. Records clearly documented the decisions made, who was involved in the process, and how the outcomes had been reached. We observed staff consistently obtaining consent from people before giving support. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of consent and mental capacity. They had received appropriate training. One staff member told us, “I always ask someone how they are and whether it’s ok to support them before I do so. If someone says no, we can always go back later. It is about what is best for them.”