Highview 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

Governance systems were in place and being used more effectively. However, they had not yet fully embedded practice or identified and resolved all issues. The registered manager had been on extended leave and their recent return to work planned a reimplementation of systems and additional systems to address this. There were action plans in place which the team were working through. Learning from other inspections, both in the service and from another of the provider’s locations had not been taken. Some issues were repetitive. For example, mealtime experience, dignity and person centred care shortalls and response to unexplained injuries. There were mixed views about the management team, with some people and relatives not being aware who the manager was. Not everyone felt they could speak up and be listened to. This included people, relatives and staff. The team worked in partnerships with external agencies. There were systems in place to ensure staff received support which treated them fairly and with equality.

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.

We had limited feedback from staff, but those we had contact with felt the staff team were committed to helping people ensure had a good standard of care. The management team told us now the registered manager was back in post they could continue with the improvements started after the last inspection. Additional support was in place by the provider to support them with this.

The provider had a service improvement plan in place. There were also surveys sent to people, relatives, staff and professionals to obtain feedback. Meetings were held to share information.

We had limited feedback from staff, but those we had contact with gave mixed views about the culture and approach in the home. Staff were unsettled about the management changes but positive about the deputy manager. A staff member said, “I really enjoy working at Highview lodge but feel that management could be a lot better. I’ve worked here for a [timeframe] now and in those years we’ve had 3 managers. The care staff and senior staff are amazing, and we’ve been working so hard to turn our home around.” The registered manager returned from extended leave during this process. They were positive about making improvements, working with staff and providing a good life for people.

The service had seen a turnover in managers. The permanent manager was away on extended leave and was now starting to do some ‘keep in touch’ days. The regional manager had been in post as registered manager in their absence but were on leave on the day of our visit. The home was managed by a deputy manager and a unit manager. The deputy manager was carrying out checks on our arrival and sharing their findings with the staff team to help ensure people’s needs were met and the home was running smoothly. We noted the deputy manager was around the home most of our visit checking on things.

Staff gave mixed views about how the management team engaged with and involved them. A staff member said, “My deputy manager is very supportive and has guided me a lot in my role, willing to help whenever I need it, and I find I work very well with her. I feel less supported by the unit manager and current home manager as I feel like they have a “closed door policy” and I find at times they can both be a little unapproachable.”

There was a record of staff meetings held May to date, however, only the May 2024 meeting was attended by staff. The following 2 meetings had a record of no staff attending.

We had limited feedback from staff. Those we had contact with gave mixed views about how they felt. Some staff felt supported and respected by the management team. However, others did not. A staff member said, “In regard to feeling supported, I do and I don’t.”

The provider had an equal opportunities policy which they adhered to.

We received limited feedback from staff. Those we had contact with gave mixed views about the management and running of the service. The management team acknowledged the service had been through an unstable time in relation to management, however, were confident with the registered managers return, approach and oversight the systems would now be used more robustly.

There were regular checks and audits undertaken to monitor and improve the service. These covered most areas of the service. However, these did not identify, or address points we had previously made, issues we found as part of this process. This was in relation to lack of appropriate action for unexplained injuries, the mealtime experience, particularly for those living with dementia, staff engagement outside of care tasks and ensuring people’s dignity was consistently considered.

People told us they felt staff supported them to access other professionals. Staff acted on their behalf to obtain resources.

Staff told us they were informed of feedback from visiting professionals.

Feedback from a recent monitoring visit demonstrated the service was working with the local authority to improve and maintain standards.

There were systems in place to ensure collaborative working with partners. This included a local care providers association.

We had limited feedback from staff but those we had contact with told us information was shared at meetings, handovers and supervisions. The registered manager advised us of their plans to drive improvement as they had returned from extended leave.

Following our last inspection, the provider sent us an action plan. While the actions taken since our last inspection and enforcement notices had seen some improvements, there had not been full improvement across the whole service. Particularly as another of the provider’s locations had similar feedback, this was a missed opportunity for sharing learning and making robust changes.