April 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

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that 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 for this key question has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

There was a clear staffing structure in place and the manager told us about the ongoing changes they were making to continue to improve their service. The manager was clear about their role and had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their job. The manager felt supported by the provider. Since the last assessment we found that the manager had implemented a robust audit system in order to have oversight of the service.

Staff told us they were comfortable to raise any issues at their supervision sessions with the manager and during team meetings. We saw records of team meetings and action plans to drive improvements had been introduced by the manager. The manager had policy and processes for staff to follow on ‘whistle blowing’. We reviewed staff meeting minutes and saw they included information about the service as well as reminders about training, staff rota’s, safeguarding and any incidents. There were detailed action plans completed to evidence how issues raised were to be addressed, dates to be achieved and if actions had been resolved or remained outstanding. The manager had recently completed a resident’s survey to gather feedback about the service. The manager also held regular resident meetings which people used as an opportunity to share their thoughts about how the service was ran and to discuss the home’s menu.

The registered manager understood their responsibility and role, they had established systems of accountability, and demonstrated good governance. Feedback from staff was positive about management and the recent changes. A senior care worker told us, “Good in that we’re now involved in care plans. Medication ; we have been given the go-ahead to be leaders which is positive. The atmosphere with the residents has changed and improved.” At our last assessment the quality assurance and governance arrangements in place were not always effective in identifying shortfalls at the service, particularly where risks were not always recorded. At this assessment we found that risk assessments were thorough and included mitigation plans. Risk assessments were also audited to monitor change and trends. In addition, at our last assessment, care plan audits were ineffective which meant that people’s needs were not always met and their opinion on their care was not always heard. At this assessment, we found that the manager had implemented a robust auditing process and we saw examples of this. The manager explained, “The [care plan] reviews are basically to update any changes. For example, [person’s] preferences have changed where [they] only want female carers to do personal care and this is reflected in the care plan.” We saw evidence of this and the person also told us during the assessment that this preference was adhered to.