Forest Lodge Care Home

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 28 August 2025 (assessment visit 27 May 2025). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   –No rating No rating

   Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question was good. At this assessment the rating changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

   We could not be assured that a pressure mattress used to support a person who was prone to pressure ulcers was working and constantly monitored. There was important information missing from a risk assessment we reviewed. We saw instances of violence and aggression by a person including threatening staff with a knife which had not been added to the risk assessment. There was a lack of information included in people’s plans which detailed the management of violence and aggression and clear descriptions of how this presented itself and how staff should effectively respond. This constituted a breach of regulation 12 safe care and treatment.

2. Effective

   –No rating No rating

   Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

   At our last assessment we rated this key question was not rated as not enough evidence categories were assessed. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

   This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

   When managing violence and aggression and where physical interventions or restraint needs to be used, a person must give their consent for this to happen. Where consent cannot be obtained a meeting with people involved in a person’s care should decide what is in the individual’s best interest. Neither the mental capacity assessment nor the best interest process was followed for the use of physical interventions for any of the cases we reviewed.

   Additionally, we saw that the provider had assessed people’s capacity and deemed that many people were not able to decide for themselves about such things as using the community, their medicines and their money. In cases where people cannot make decisions in such aspects of their lives people involved in their care should be involved to assist with what is in the best interests of the person. Whilst in each case, capacity had been assessed, the best interest process in the care plans we reviewed was not fully followed.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

   At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

   At our last assessment we rated this key question was good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

5. Well-led

   GGood Good

   Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

   At our last assessment this key question was not rated. At this assessment we have rated as good. Whilst we found some inconsistencies with some recording, the provider immediately addressed these issues.