Lindhurst Lodge Residential 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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, 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.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager promoted a person-centred culture and encouraged staff to be flexible and responsive to people’s needs. Staff morale was positive. Staff told us they were treated well, and they enjoyed their jobs. Comments from staff included, “I love my job, everyone’s very hardworking and we help each other. “Another staff member said,” The manager genuinely loves her job and that enthusiasm transfers to the staff.”

The service had inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders were visible within the service and lead by example to their staff team, demonstrating inclusive behaviours.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff had access to regular supervision and support from leaders, promoting staff empowerment and involvement in the service. Staff we spoke with felt able to raise concerns to leaders.

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 told us they work well as a team, and they do what they can to help each other.

People and relatives spoke highly of the registered manager and felt she was approachable and listened to any concerns or issues raised. There were quality monitoring systems in place, however, these were not always effective. Some areas for improvement we identified during the site visit were not identified as part of the providers quality monitoring systems. For example, people were not always protected from the risk of infection and unmanaged risks in the premises.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. The service had links with social care professionals and community health services so they could work in partnership with other organisations. For example, appropriate referrals had been made to external health and social care professionals where this was required for people.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Whilst we did identify shortfalls during this assessment, the manager was responsive to our findings and acted urgently on key areas of improvement.