Park 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

During our assessment of this key question, we found the provider had not taken enough action to meet a breach in legal requirements we found at the last inspection of the service (published in December 2022). We found their oversight and management of the service and governance and records systems remained ineffective. We also found concerns about the lack of opportunities for people and staff to give their feedback and views about how the service could improve. These issues meant the provider continued to be in breach of regulation 17 of the HSCA 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff did not have full confidence in the current management and leadership of the service. Feedback from 2 staff members indicated they did not feel fully supported by management. A staff member told us, “You have to be up to date with legislation and know what you are doing. I don’t think [the provider] has the experience to run a home like this.” One of the 2 partners managing the service told us the previous registered manager had left in the month before our assessment. The partner said they were only managing the service and supporting the staff team on an interim basis whilst a new manager was recruited.

At our last inspection of the service we found ineffective oversight at management and provider level. Management and leadership of the service remained ineffective. There was no current registered manager in post and the service was being managed by 2 of the 3 partners. Neither of the 2 partners had the skills knowledge and experience required to manage the service They had not arranged a formal handover with the previous registered manager prior to our first site visit. This meant they had no oversight of any outstanding issues or actions relating to the service that needed to be dealt with. The 2 partners were aware of their lack of skills, knowledge and experience and in response had brought in an external consultant in the week prior to our assessment, to support them in recruiting an experienced manager for the service.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The provider did not have robust management and accountability arrangements in place. One of the 2 partners managing the service told us that neither partner had undertaken their own checks of the service during the time the previous registered manager had been in post. The partner said they had trusted the previous registered manager to do the job they were appointed to do.

At our last inspection of the service we found the provider’s governance systems were not effective. Records had not been maintained safely and securely. The provider’s governance systems remained ineffective. They had not identified concerns we found at this assessment related to staffing levels, recruitment, training and supervision, the environment, fixtures and fittings and infection risks related to food storage. This concerns increased the risk to people of receiving unsafe and inappropriate care. Management of records related to the service remained poor. During our first site visit, the partner was unable to provide key records relating to people and to the management of the service as they did not know where they were. We were eventually provided with some of the records we requested to see, however it was clear the provider was not securely maintaining records related to the management of the service. The provider was not ensuring they were meeting their legal responsibility to comply with regulatory requirements. We found the rating from the last inspection had not been displayed. We also found the provider had not sent information to CQC they were required to do, by law. The provider took action after our site visits and made sure the rating was displayed in the communal hallway and the required notification was submitted. The partners were aware that governance and records systems needed to be improved. They had brought in an external consultant in the week prior to our assessment, and they were working with the provider to review the service and identify the improvements that were needed.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff had concerns about the effectiveness of the provider to deal with issues and concerns. A staff member told us, “I will raise issues about the environment with the manager. But we know they have no money.” One of the 2 partners managing the service acknowledged there was not enough money available to make all the improvements that were required at the service. They told us however that recent improvements had been made which included repainting around the environment, refurbishment of the one of the bathrooms and new flooring for the kitchen. They had also purchased a new washing machine, dryer and cooker. People and staff were not provided with regular opportunities to give their feedback and views about how the service could improve. A staff member told us, “Before, there used to be residents’ meetings but there hasn’t been any recently. This needs to be implemented again. I think people should be given more choices.”

The provider was not using learning to make improvements required at the service. They had not taken sufficient action since our last inspection to meet breaches in regulations that were identified. The provider had an improvement plan for the service but there was no ongoing review or oversight of this which meant the provider was unaware many of the intended actions had not been completed. The provider did not have systems in place to seek and act on feedback from people and staff. As such they were not continually evaluating and improving the service for people. The 2 partners had brought in an external consultant in the week prior to our assessment, and they were working with the provider to develop an improved action plan for the service that clearly set out the required improvements needed and the timescales for making these.