• Care Home
  • Care home

Alvina Lodge

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

22 Hoppner Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8PY (020) 8581 5760

Provided and run by:
Flying Angel Limited

Report from 16 February 2025 assessment

On this page

Effective

Good

19 March 2025

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. The last rating for this service was requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Assessing needs

Score: 3

People’s needs were assessed and planned for before they moved to the service. We saw assessments and reviews of care included regular consultations with the person being cared for. People were supported to plan objectives which reflected their individual needs and considered how they could improve their mental health and wellbeing. The registered manager explained they were careful when deciding if they could meet a person’s needs to ensure they were compatible with other people living at the service. People had weekly discussions with staff to review their objectives and care plan. They used these to discuss their individual needs and any extra support they required, as well as what was working well and what needed to change. People told us these meetings were useful.

Delivering evidence-based care and treatment

Score: 3

People received evidence-based care and support. The staff undertook a range of training to help them understand about people’s needs, best practice and legislation. The staff explained this was helpful. Staff also took part in weekly teaching sessions where they and members of the management team discussed specific topics. This helped to improve their knowledge, skills and confidence. A member of staff explained, “I had an induction which covered the needs of people, policies and procedures. I have completed training in mental health and feel confident in my day-to-day work with people. I undertake regular training, and we have workshops with the manager.’’

People were supported to plan and prepare their own meals. They were encouraged to make healthy choices and to learn new skills when preparing food. We observed people preparing their own lunches with support. They told us they were happy with this arrangement and felt able to make choices which reflected their dietary needs and tastes.

How staff, teams and services work together

Score: 3

There were good systems for the staff to communicate with each other and external professionals. Staff were often lone workers, and they told us they were confident the staff team shared essential information with each other to ensure continuity of care. There was a written and verbal handover of information between staff. They also used a digital platform for care planning and recording messages to each other. This included information people’s needs, and any tasks staff needed to complete whilst at work. The staff met in person for weekly workshops and monthly team meetings. A staff member explained, “We have monthly supervisions and team meetings. These are supportive and useful.” Another member of staff explained, “I feel very supported as part of the team. We use [messaging applications] to stay in touch and share information.”

The staff also worked closely with external professionals. People using the service had regular visits from community mental health professionals and the staff shared information with these professionals to make sure people received the right care and treatment from everyone involved in their care. An external professional told us, “As a professional, I feel well-supported by the team, and I appreciate their commitment to a joint working approach, which is essential when supporting vulnerable individuals.”

Supporting people to live healthier lives

Score: 3

People were supported with their physical and mental health. They had support plans which were designed around their mental health recovery and managing their symptoms and needs. The staff worked closely with the other professionals involved in their care to monitor and meet these needs. People were supported to access healthcare appointments. A person explained, “I share information about my appointments with staff. They write this in the diary and remind me to attend these.’’ We saw evidence of regular consultations with different healthcare teams. Staff recorded the outcomes of these and incorporated any guidance into people’s support plans.

Monitoring and improving outcomes

Score: 3

People’s needs and outcomes were monitored. The digital platform used by staff helped them to keep a track of changes in people’s needs. Each person met with a member of staff weekly to discuss their needs, support plan and how they were feeling. These meetings helped staff to identify any decline in a person’s mental health as well as monitoring their progress in meeting objectives. Records of meetings were added to the digital platform, and these were reviewed by the management team.

People consented to their care and treatment. Staff discussed the different aspects of people’s care and support, as well as house rules and restrictions with each person. They had signed their agreement to these as part of the conditions of living at the service. Everyone living at the service was able to understand and agree to these. For people who did not have the mental capacity to make more complex decisions, the provider had made decisions in their best interests in consultation with others and had obtained the correct legal authorisations for these decisions.

Staff told us they respected people’s choices when offering support. People confirmed this and explained they felt consulted and well informed. People understood about house rules and why they were important. The provider had assessed the least restrictive and safest options for people. There were some restrictions, but these had been assessed and recorded as necessary for risk management and people had agreed to these. A person told us, “I’m happy with the kitchen being locked, staff have to observe us in the kitchen for safety reasons”