Hope Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. The service was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to governance. The provider had not always ensured their systems were effective and ensured safe medicines administration effective care planning and safe environments.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We identified an increased risk of people receiving medicines with psychotropic or sedative effects without a clearly documented and justified reason for doing so. This was not in line with 'STOMP' NHS guidance, which supports stopping of over-medicating people with a learning disability and autistic people being over-medicated. The service had not demonstrated right care, the right support, and the right culture in relation to medicines. However, people had regular opportunities to be part of their community, and the service promoted their independent daily living skills.

Although the service took action in response to some of our concerns, leaders had not independently identified these concerns prior to our inspection. This meant they could not always evidence capable leadership with effective oversight of all parts of the service. However, leaders had a 'hands-on' approach, as they supported people alongside staff in community-based activities such as visiting social clubs and walking. A relative said, "[Registered manager] seems to get on with my [family member] and understands them. I have not had any reason to raise a concern, not really."

Due to our findings that incidents were not always reported and well documented by staff, we could not be assured people, and their relatives would be informed of these promptly and would be given an apology where required. However, people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff and relatives told us they felt free to speak up. Staff meeting minutes showed staff were encouraged to give feedback. In addition, the service had a suggestion box where anyone could leave feedback anonymously. A staff member told us “Anytime I can call [registered manager] and they will answer.”

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them. Staff confirmed they were treated with fairness and equality and felt well supported.

At our last inspection, the service was in breach of the legal regulation related to governance. The service remains in breach of that regulation. The service did no operate effective systems to always ensure the safety of the environment, supporting people with their goals, managing health risks and ensuring people always received their medicines safety and consistently.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. We saw evidence of external health professionals being involved in people’s care such as GPs, dentists and opticians.

The service needed to improve their systems to ensure learning always took place and quality concerns were addressed. Although there were systems to audit medicines, care records, staff training and health and safety, we identified concerns in these areas that the provider could not demonstrate they had been aware of prior to our inspection.