Imperial Lodge

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 13 August 2024 (assessment visit 17 June 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   GGood Good

   People felt they were safely cared for. However, we identified some improvements were needed. The staff had not always ensured good cleanliness. This presented a risk of the spread of infection. We discussed this with the deputy manager who began to address the concerns. Medicines were generally well managed, although some improvements were needed to the way 'as required' medicines were being administered and recorded. We also discussed this so the staff understood what they needed to do to improve.

   There were enough suitable staff. The staff had training and support. They understood how to meet people's needs. There were systems to help everyone learn when things went wrong. People using the service and staff were able to reflect on adverse events and learn from these. Risks to people's safety were well managed. People were able to make informed decisions about risks.

2. Caring

   GGood Good

   People were able to make choices about their care and support. They were encouraged to be independent and treated as individuals. Their care was planned for, and they had opportunities to be involved in this planning and reviews.

   Staff were well treated and supported.

   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.

3. Responsive

   GGood Good

   People's diverse needs were planned for, respected, and met.

   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.

4. Well-led

   GGood Good

   The provider had made improvements since the last inspection. They had addressed areas of concern and had effective systems for monitoring and improving quality. The exception to this, was in relation to monitoring cleanliness. Staff had recorded they had cleaned and checked areas when this was not always the case. The provider's systems had not identified this. We discussed this with senior staff who acknowledged this and started to develop more robust systems for checking.

   There was a positive culture at the service. Staff felt supported. Staff and people using the service had good links with external professionals. Staff followed best practice guidance to help ensure people received good quality care. The registered manager was appropriately experienced and qualified. People and staff felt the service was well-led.