The Lodge

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 29 May 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 21 April – 22 May 2026. We visited the service on 21 and 29 April 2026 and reviewed the care and support people received along with their care records and management information. The Lodge provides residential and nursing care to people with a range of different needs including learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorder. The Lodge can accommodate up to 6 people. On the day of inspection there were 6 people living in the service. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement dependent on their registration with us. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. We carried out this assessment under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We assessed the service because of the age of the rating and we reviewed all key questions and quality statements. The outcome of this assessment was a rating for the service. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities most people take for granted. We were assured the service provided care in line with this guidance and we rated the service as good.

Members of staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. People who lived in The Lodge were safe. Members of staff had received appropriate training to keep people safe and we observed safe practice when members of staff supported people. We saw evidence the provider followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) to review people’s capacity and understanding around receiving care and support. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs which was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things which mattered to them. Care was delivered in line with people’s care plans. The care environment was clean, well maintained and adapted to meet people’s physical, sensory and emotional needs, which supported safety and wellbeing. The provider made sure there were qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received support, supervision and development. Concerns around use of agency staff were shared with us and we raised this with the registered manager and they told us about the actions in place to mitigate this risk. Members of staff supported people to take their medicines safely and in ways which met their individual needs.

People's needs were assessed and recorded appropriately in their care plans. People’s families were involved in the care planning process and were kept informed and involved about any changes. Communication between teams of staff was good and information was shared appropriately to ensure consistency of care and support for people. People’s care plans clearly identified and documented their health needs. People were engaged in conversations about consent to care and support. People’s capacity to consent to care was assessed and recorded in their care plans.

Members of staff were kind and caring and people received care and support in line with their care plans. There was a pleasant atmosphere in the care home with a good level of noise and engagement which supported the feeling of a homely environment. People had their own individualised activity plans, and we observed people doing different activities throughout the home including using sensory equipment, watching films and spending time with members of staff. Members of staff knew people well and were able to respond to their needs in the moment without delay. Support was in place for the staff team; however, some members of staff felt the provider could, at times, be more supportive.

People’s care was person-centred and individualised to their specific needs. The provider had good links with specialist community learning disability teams which ensured people’s care and support was joined up and integrated. People were involved in discussions and decisions about their care and were told what had changed as a result. Where people did not have capacity, these decisions were made and recorded in their best interest. The provider recognised and respected people’s religious and cultural needs, which were clearly recorded in their care plans.

The provider had clear values and expectations for the provision of care and support for people. The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. The provider had systems in place so members of staff could speak up, however, they did not always feel they could speak up and their voice would be heard. We raised these concerns with the provider and they told us they were aware of the concerns and they had put some additional arrangements in place intended to support speaking up and fairness. The provider had policies and procedures supporting diversity and inclusion within the service. Members of staff were able to access support via the ‘Employee Assist’ program and had access to staff reward schemes. Clear governance systems and processes were in place which enabled the management team and the provider to monitor and review the quality of care and outcomes for people. The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.