Aurora Hyde 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

Improvements had been made since the last assessment. Records were up to date and a new manager had been appointed. Staff spoke positively about how the home was led and managed. Governance arrangements had improved to ensure improvement action were identified and monitored for progression and completion. Although we found 1 notification around an ongoing safeguarding concern raised by the multi-disciplinary team involved in the person’s care needed to be made. This meant although improvements had been made to the providers governance arrangements, the systems and processes needed to be fully established.

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.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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.

Staff told us the home was well-led and managed. The manager was visible, available and engaged well with staff and service users. A staff member told us, “Changes have had a positive effect in the way things are done. The support is good, things are done immediately. Management are very approachable.” Staff told us how information had been revised. A staff member said, “Things have been updated in care plans and risk assessments. Guidance around activities and other work to get on and do had also been updated.” Staff were knowledgeable about the service users they supported. They demonstrated how they facilitated choices and supported people to be independent. Staff were passionate, enthusiastic and person centred in their approach. A staff member described changes in 1 person saying, “[Name of person] quality of life has increased.” Permanent staff had been recruited. Improvements in staffing had a positive impact on people. A staff member said, “Staffing has improved massively, there is consistent staffing.” Staff told us this had led to effective key working systems, more provision of activities and better team working. A staff member said, “We work collaboratively as a team.”

There had been changes in management since the last assessment. Systems ensured information was available and communicated throughout the staff team. Staff could raise ideas and suggestions which were acted upon. People’s care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed. This meant information was up to date and accurate. This included guidance around percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) procedures, eating, drinking and choking risks and hospital passports. Staff training was monitored and reviewed. Training required for staff in epilepsy and midazolam had been arranged but not yet completed. This was included in the providers action plan. At the last assessment we identified improvements were required where people lacked mental capacity for particular decisions, as not all assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken for people. This area was still outstanding and was identified on the providers action plan. Where people were being deprived of their liberty, referrals had been made to the local authority as appropriate. The manager monitored Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) referrals. Audits were regularly completed. These monitored areas such as safeguarding, incident, DoLS and staff training. Improvements had been made to ensure actions were identified and completed. We found not all notifications were being submitted, as required. For example, 1 notification in relation to a safeguarding concern had not been submitted. Action was taken following our assessment to submit this notification.

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.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.