Bowland Lodge

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

Staff gave positive feedback on the leadership of the registered manager in driving improvements at the service. Improvements had been made in some areas since our last inspection, but in other areas further and sustained improvement was needed. The provider’s governance processes were still not always effective at monitoring and improving standards at the service.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff spoke positively about the direction of the service, describing a culture of ongoing improvement. One member of staff said, “I love my job here and I can see things are improving. Rome wasn’t built in a day and we know this. We know we have work to do, but we’re getting there.”

The registered manager had worked to create an ongoing culture of improvement at the service. One person told us, “If I had any concerns the management have addressed it quickly.” The provider did not have their own plans for developing a shared direction and culture, but said they supported the registered manager and staff in their ongoing work.

The registered manager was a visible presence around the service, and was known to people and staff. One person told us, “[Registered manager] is always walking around and we have chats.” A member of staff said, "[The registered manager] has put her heart and soul into the care home." However, our assessment found the provider’s governance processes did not always meet expected standards which impacted on how the service was led.

People and staff felt included in how the service was run. One member of staff said, “[Registered manager] is always keen to hear from us and is driving improvement. [Registered manager] always asks what my views are.” Meetings were held with people and staff, and records showed that feedback was sought and acted on. However, our assessment found the provider’s governance processes did not always meet expected standards which impacted on how the service was led.

Staff told us they were comfortable raising issues and were confident action would be taken if they did. One member of staff said, “We have a very transparent way of working here and we are all very vocal.” Staff told us the registered manager and provider were visible around the service and could be approached to discuss any concerns staff had.

The provider had whistleblowing and safeguarding policies in place, and staff said they knew how to use these. One member of staff told us, "I would inform management or I know how to inform safeguarding" if they had any concerns.

The service had a diverse staff group with a range of age, gender and cultural backgrounds. Staff did not raise any concerns with us about workforce equality, diversity or inclusion. One member of staff said, “I love it here and I have great relationships with everyone.”

The provider had policies in place covering equality, diversity and inclusion. An open and transparent recruitment process was used when employing new staff.

Staff spoke positively about the management of the service, especially by the registered manager. One member of staff said, “[The registered manager] is really taking it and running with it, she loves a project and looking for new ideas on how to improve things.” The provider told us they were continuing to review their own oversight of the service, including through the use of external consultants. However, our assessment found the provider’s governance processes did not always meet expected standards which impacted on how the service was led.

The registered manager carried out a range of audits of the service. The provider used external consultants to carry out audit visits. In both cases, these had not identified the ongoing issues we found in relation to medicines management, risk assessments or care plan consistency.

People were members of their local community, and able to access this when they wished depending on their support needs. One person told us, “I’m in control.”

The registered manager told us how the service worked in partnership with a range of external professionals to monitor and improve people’s health and wellbeing. This had included improved communication with pharmacists to try to address ongoing medicines issues.

External professionals told us they had seen ongoing improvements at the service, and did not raise any concerns with us.

Care records contained evidence of effective partnership working with external professionals. Advice was sought where needed, and usually acted on. However, in some areas further improvement was needed. For example, the external consultants used by the provider had not always identified or addressed the issues we found during our visit in relation to medicines management, risk management and care plans.

The provider was reviewing their plans to improve the service. They were carrying out more visits to the home and working with external consultants to achieve this, but further and sustained improvement was needed. Staff felt that the registered manager and provider were committed to the ongoing improvement and development of the service.

The provider’s systems for learning and improvement were still not always effective. Though the service had improved since our last visit, we found ongoing issues in relation to medicines management, risk management and care plans. Systems for involving staff in the ongoing development of the home had improved. For example, a survey had taken place to obtain staff views and suggestions.