Hansa Lodge

We carried out this assessment on 2 July 2026 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 if we found any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

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. Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

People told us they felt safe with the staff and would feel comfortable in saying if they did not. A person said, “I do feel safe with the staff.” A relative told us, “I have no concerns about the staff or the home.” Records showed staff had undertaken training to support their knowledge and understanding of how to keep people safe. They knew of their responsibilities to protect people from harm.

Risks to people were assessed and management plans were in place to inform staff how to reduce and manage risks to maintain people’s safety. For example, we saw risk assessments had been undertaken for people who were at risk of falls.

The provider had a system to ensure all equipment was maintained and serviced. For example, we saw checks had been carried out on the electrical hard wiring and gas appliances.

A system was in place to record and monitor accidents and incidents within the service. The registered manager investigated all accidents and incidents, taking appropriate action to reduce the risk of recurrence and ensure people remained safe. We saw evidence that learning from incidents was embedded within the service, with appropriate actions identified, implemented, and monitored to improve safety and improve the quality of care.

The provider ensured people received their medicines on time and as prescribed. Staff completed a daily check to ensure people receive their medicines safely. This helped to identify any concerns and address any shortfalls.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to provide personalised care and support. People were supported by the same staff members unless the staff were on leave or not well. The provider did not use agency staff. This helped with consistency and continuity of care as staff were aware of the needs of people they were caring for.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences, and personal circumstances, enabling them to develop positive, respectful, and trusting relationships.

The service promoted an open, inclusive, and person-centred culture. Staff, people using the service, relatives, and external professionals were actively encouraged to contribute to the ongoing development and continuous improvement of the service.

The provider maintained effective partnerships with the local community and relevant organisations, supporting a coordinated and collaborative approach to delivering high-quality care.

Robust quality assurance and governance systems were in place to monitor the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the service. These processes supported continuous learning, identified areas for improvement, and helped drive positive outcomes for people using the service.