Elm 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

The service was well-led. The management team worked closely with staff to monitor and improve the quality of care. The governance systems were being operated effectively. We did not assess all the quality statements within this key question. We did not identify concerns relating to these areas which we judged as being met at our last inspection.

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.

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.

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

There were procedures for speaking up and sharing information. The staff had relevant training. There were regular meetings for staff. These ensured the staff were well informed and involved in sharing their experiences and speaking up.

Staff understood the procedure for speaking up. They felt confident speaking up and said their concerns would be listened to and acted on. Their comments included, ''I can raise concerns with the manager but mostly we can resolve any issues as a staff team'' and ''We are able to learn from things that go wrong and share these with each other and managers.''

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 registered manager was appropriately qualified and experienced. Staff spoke positively about the support of the management team and felt empowered to understand about their roles and the governance of the service.

There were suitable systems to ensure good governance. These included monitoring, assessing and reviewing adverse events, regular team meetings, supervising staff and providing staff training. There were a range of policies and procedures for managing the service. These reflected legislation and good practice guidance.

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 spoke positively about their experiences with training and learning about good practice. They felt able to reflect on their work and develop their skills.

There were systems and processes for monitoring and improving quality and these were effectively implemented. The staff, management team and senior managers carried out a range of audits, asked stakeholders for feedback and investigated adverse events. The provider had worked closely with other organisations to monitor and mitigate risks at the service.