Independent Person's Report
Example Lodge Children's Home
| Visit date | 12 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Type of visit | Unannounced |
| Independent person | Marion O. |
| Registered manager | Denise W. |
1. Purpose and method
This visit was carried out under Regulation 44 of the Children's Homes (England) Regulations 2015, to form an opinion on whether children at Example Lodge are effectively safeguarded and whether the conduct of the home promotes their well-being. I arrived unannounced and was let in by a member of staff on shift. I spent the visit on the premises, spoke with children and staff individually and in passing, reviewed a sample of records with consent, and walked the building including bedrooms with the relevant child's agreement.
2. Who I spoke with
Three of the four children resident at the time of the visit agreed to speak with me privately. The fourth, J, was at a college placement for the day and I have recorded her views from her keyworker instead, with her prior agreement on file to that arrangement.
3. Children spoken with
- •R, aged 15, spoke with me in the garden for around twenty minutes.
- •T, aged 13, spoke with me briefly in the lounge and asked to keep it short.
- •M, aged 16, spoke with me in his bedroom, with the door open, for about fifteen minutes.
4. Staff and manager
I also spoke with the two staff on shift, a bank worker covering a sickness absence, and by phone with the registered manager, who was off site that day.
5. What I saw
The home was calm on arrival. Staff were engaged with T over a college application form at the kitchen table, and the general atmosphere was unhurried. The communal areas were tidy and personalised with children's own belongings and artwork. M's bedroom, which he showed me with his agreement, was well kept and he said he felt it was "actually mine, not just a room". The garden had recent storm damage to a fence panel, reported to maintenance according to the daily log but not yet actioned. The medication cabinet was locked and the keyholder was clearly identified on the shift handover.
6. Children's views
R told me she felt safe at Example Lodge and named a specific staff member she goes to "when things are bad". She raised that a planned family contact session had been cancelled twice in the last month and she had not been told why until she asked directly. T said little beyond that things were "fine" and that he wanted a later bedtime on non-school nights, which he said he had already raised with staff. M spoke positively about a recent activity trip and said staff "listen more than my last place did", but also said that a restraint used on another young person two weeks earlier had unsettled him and he wished staff had talked to the group about it afterwards.
7. Staff views
Both staff on shift described the team as short-staffed that week due to two vacancies, with agency and bank cover filling the gaps. Both said they felt supported by the deputy manager day to day but one raised that her last supervision session had been cancelled and not yet rearranged. The bank worker had not received a full handover briefing on M's behaviour support plan before starting her shift.
8. Records sampled
With the relevant consents in place, I reviewed: the daily log for the preceding two weeks; the behaviour support plan and most recent review for M; the restraint record for the incident M referred to; R's care plan and the most recent placement plan review; the staff supervision schedule and the two most recent supervision records for staff on duty during my visit; and the home's missing from care policy, which was not tested against a live incident during this period.
9. Recommendations
Restraint recording and debrief (Safeguarding). The restraint record for the incident on 29 July 2026 was completed and signed on time, but there is no record that the wider group of children, including those not directly involved, were offered any opportunity to talk about what they saw. I recommend the registered manager introduces a standard step, recorded in the daily log, for checking in with any child who witnessed a restraint, even where they were not the subject of it. Immediate.
Contact changes explained to the child (Care planning). R's family contact was cancelled twice without her being told the reason until she asked. I recommend the care plan or contact arrangement records show that any change to contact is explained to the child at the time it happens, not only when they ask. Within 7 days.
Staff handover on individual plans (Staffing). The bank worker covering the sickness absence had not been briefed on M's behaviour support plan before starting her shift. I recommend agency and bank staff receive a documented handover on the current behaviour support plans for any child they will be working with, before the shift begins wherever practicable. Within 7 days.
Supervision continuity (Staffing). One staff member's supervision session was cancelled and had not been rearranged at the time of my visit. I recommend the registered manager reviews the supervision schedule for all staff and confirms rearranged dates in writing. Within 28 days.
Garden fence repair (Premises). The damaged fence panel reported in the daily log on 4 August 2026 had not been actioned by the date of my visit. I recommend this is followed up with the maintenance contractor and a completion date confirmed. Within 28 days.
Bedtime request review (Care planning). T raised a request for a later bedtime on non-school nights that he says he has already raised with staff. I recommend the registered manager confirms this has been considered and records the outcome and reasoning, whichever way it is decided, so T knows his request was taken seriously. Before next visit.
Page 1 of 1