Bumblebee 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

There was a lack of oversight at the service which if left unchecked could impact on the quality of care people at the service received. However, the new manager was working to address the issues. The staff working each day at the service showed great commitment to the people they supported and this continued to have a positive effect on people’s lives. However, we would need to see sustained improvements in the oversight and quality monitoring processes at the service to be assured the quality of people’s care would be maintained.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff we spoke with felt there was a culture of shared direction at the service. All the staff we spoke with were clear about their vision and commitment for the people living at the service. One member of staff said, “(We work) to provide care for those unable to provide care for themselves and offer them a better lifestyle. I always make it about the client. It’s about giving choices and respecting their wishes.”

Despite what the staff told us about the culture of the service, we found there were concerns at other locations to show the provider did not always work in an open way supporting and safeguarding people from harm. This had impacted on this service, as there had been concerns with the previous registered manager which had not been addressed in an open and effective way by the provider. We recognise the staff had worked hard to continue to support people, this had resulted in people having a good quality of life at the service. The new manager and quality assurance manager we spoke with told us they had started to work to improve oversight and leadership. However, they recognised there was more work to be done to ensure effective oversight of the service.

There had been a new manager appointed recently. Staff felt the appointment of the new manager was beneficial to the service. They felt it was early days but could see improvements since the manager had been in post. One member of staff who had recently been promoted told us the new manager and quality assurance manager had been supportive of them in their new role.

Staff had been supported recently with supervisions but we saw there had been a long period of time when they had not received regular support and supervisions. We would need to see this aspect of staff support sustained to ensure staff were consistently supported.

Staff told us they could speak with the new manager and they seemed fair and approachable with all staff. The manager was clear about how they would support staff who whistle blew on poor practices.

There was no evidence of staff meetings (although a member of staff told us there had been one recently), and supervisions had only just started under the leadership of the new manager. Again, we would need to see significant, sustained improvements in the leadership of the service to be assured people and staff continued to be well supported.

As highlighted in this section of the report the oversight of the service needed to be improved. The new manager and quality assurance manager were working closely with each other to achieve this. The manager said, “The processes are in place but they do need to be improved and we are working together to improve things.”

As highlighted in other areas of the report, some aspects of care lacked proper oversight at the service. This included the lack of a current DoLS being in place for one person, also the person’s continued weight gain, which affected the hard work both the person and staff had put in to work towards reaching a healthy weight and support their improved mobility. There was a lack of consistent quality audits over the last year. One person had a broken blind in their room highlighted on the only audits available to us, dated 4 June 2023, 30 June 2023, August 2023 and again on 7 April 2024. Auditing processes had also not highlighted the concern we found with medicine counts not being undertaken robustly. The quality monitoring processes had also not highlighted the concerns we found with the information in people’s care plans. For example, people’s anxieties were highlighted in care records but gave no further information on how staff should respond to individuals to reduce their anxieties.

People’s relatives were very positive about how staff worked with them to build partnerships and improve outcomes for people. Relatives we spoke with told us the deputy manager, who had worked at the service for some time, was very proactive in working with people, health professionals and themselves. One relative said, “[deputy manager] was a star.” Another relative told us the deputy always went the extra mile.

The manager told us they worked with a range of health professionals including advocates, social workers, GP’s and consultants. They told us they used a number of ways to contact them. For example, via email, phone and face to face meetings. The manager told us they worked with these health professionals to maintain good outcomes for people.

Unfortunately there was no feedback from partners about the service.

There were processes in place to show when staff had worked with health professionals and families. They had recorded these interactions in each person’s care plan.

Staff told us that although they had a staff meeting recently with their new manager, these had been a bit hit and miss over the last few months. They told us they had used their daily handovers to discuss any issues between themselves. One member of staff said, “The last meeting I had was a few weeks ago. I found it useful, and it was a positive meeting. We were told to speak up if there was anything that we would do differently and that there would be regular meetings.”

There was a lack of processes in place to show how learning from events and improvements at the service were managed. The new manager and quality monitoring manager had started to address this aspect of care. However, we would need to see evidence going forward of how learning and improvement was both addressed and sustained to assure ourselves the senior managers were supporting staff learning and improvement.