White Lodge Residential Home

Who the service is for

This is a service for older people.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 22 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

Systems and processes were in place to learn and adapt when things went wrong. Incidents, accidents and falls were reviewed to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Actions were taken such as reviews of risk assessments, increased monitoring, professional advice and introducing new equipment where appropriate.
Staff were trained and followed the provider's policy to recognise and report any safeguarding concerns. The service had a safeguarding lead who escalated any concerns appropriately and ensured learning outcomes were applied where needed.

People's care records contained information about their health needs and any associated risks. Risk assessments were in place and robust for all health needs including Parkinson's disease, diabetes, continence care and skin integrity needs. People were involved in formulating their care plans which staff followed to provide safe care. Staff promoted people's safety in line with their choices whilst prioritising their independence. A person with swallowing difficulties received food in line with the Speech and Language Therapist’s recommended consistency and staff discreetly monitored the person so they could continue to eat safely and independently.

The service was clean, well maintained and homely. Staff followed good infection prevention and control practices and personal protective equipment was available. Equipment and fire safety arrangements were maintained. Maintenance issues were responded to promptly.

We observed there were enough staff to support people and spend meaningful time with them. Staff were visible throughout our visit and people told us staff answered their call bells quickly and help was available when they needed it. There was a stable workforce which meant staff knew people's routines and preferences well. Staff completed induction and training; observations and competency assessments were undertaken to review their practices. Medicines were stored securely and staff administered medicines safely, respectfully and in a person-centred way. People who required time-critical medicines received them at the correct time.

People's needs were assessed and their care was reviewed when their needs changed. Staff utilised nationally recognised tools to assess people’s changing needs and contacted healthcare professionals where their input would benefit people. Visiting healthcare professionals told us staff contacted them in a timely way and followed their advice.
Staff sought consent before providing support and ensured people were given choices. Staff adapted their communication to the person, for example, allowing additional processing time, using visual information and watching people's body language and facial expressions. Where people were unable to make a particular decision, records included arrangements to involve representatives and professionals as appropriate.

We observed warm and respectful interactions between people and staff. Staff used humour and banter appropriately and adapted their approach when needed. During lunch, staff discreetly recognised when a person needed support to use the toilet and arranged this without drawing attention to them. People were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves including going out when they wished and could choose how to spend their time. People’s feedback shaped the menus, activity plans and improvements to the environment.
People received person-centred support in accordance with their individual preferences, routines and interests. This included maintaining links with friends, family and the community, following their faith and pursuing interests such as, the use of technology. People’s own spaces were personalised with their photographs, furniture and possessions.
People and relatives had opportunities to voice their views and provide feedback. Residents’ meetings were held and "You Said, We Did" arrangements demonstrated people’s suggestions about meals, activities and the environment were listened to and addressed.

There was a strong shared culture within the service, the registered manager was highly regarded by people, their families, professionals and staff. Staff told us they felt well supported by the management team, some comments included, “[Registered manager] is very lovely, sometimes I think too lovely. I could speak to them about anything, and they will do the best they can.” And, “They (management) are good here, I am very happy. It feels like a big family, all the residents are close and us staff too. I wouldn’t want to leave.”
The provider’s ‘Home Charter’ set expectations around respect, inclusion, communication, speaking up, learning and accountability and practices were modelled and monitored by the management team. Staff were enabled to contribute ideas and discuss areas for improvement through meetings and surveys. The service had developed meaningful links with its local community, including local schools and entertainers.

Governance systems monitored people’s support, incidents, medicines, infection prevention and control, staffing, health and safety and other areas to ensure a smooth running service. Managers from the provider’s head office provided additional oversight and support to the registered manager. Audits identified some areas for improvement and action plans were developed and monitored.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. At the time of our assessment no person had a requirement for a DoLS authorisation, however, the management team understood their responsibility to assess people’s mental capacity and apply where required. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.