CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Acorn Lodge - Croydon
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks, visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing and outbreaks were being managed. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Acorn Lodge - Croydon was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 January 2022. Inspectors gave 24 hours' notice and looked at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
The home had checks for visitors' vaccination status and lateral flow tests. It provided masks, hand gel and testing, used social distancing in shared areas, and had a separate visiting entrance.
Inspectors were assured that people were admitted safely, staff used protective equipment properly, infection risks were managed, and non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report therefore does not give an overall judgement about the quality of care or ratings for the other four areas.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors and external staff had their vaccination status and lateral flow test results checked. Spare tests, masks and hand gel were available at the entrance.
“The provider had a robust system in place to ensure that visitors and external staff entering the premises had their vaccination status and lateral flow tests (LFT) checked.” from the report
Safer visiting layout
Shared areas had spaced seating, and a separate entrance led visitors directly to a visiting room without unnecessary movement through the home.
“The provider had implemented appropriate social distancing in all communal areas.” from the report
Staff followed precautions
Inspectors observed staff following protective equipment and social distancing guidance.
“Our observations during the inspection confirmed staff were adhering to personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing guidance.” from the report
Safe admissions
New residents were kept in their rooms for 14 days and needed three negative lateral flow tests on consecutive days before moving on.
“The provider told us that new admissions were nursed in their room until a 14 day period had passed, and three negative LFTs had been obtained over consecutive days.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you checking visitors' vaccination status and lateral flow tests now?
- 02What arrangements are currently in place for visits, including the use of a separate visiting area or entrance?
- 03Do new residents still remain in their rooms for 14 days and have three negative lateral flow tests?
- 04How are you managing COVID-19-related staffing pressures, and could these affect people's care?
- 05How are staff who are more vulnerable to COVID-19 being supported and kept safe?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home was not always well-led.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 and 5 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training and management records.
The home had improved since its previous inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment checks, accurate care records, safe medicines management and clean premises. People were treated with kindness, supported to make choices and offered activities and healthcare support.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because improvements were recent, staff supervision was not yet regular, there was no registered manager in post, and some responses to concerns about a staff member were not prompt enough.
Safer staffing checks
Recruitment checks had improved, including checks on employment history, references and criminal records. Inspectors found enough staff to support people.
“These checks helped to ensure only suitable staff were employed to support people.” from the report
Personalised care records
Records included people's life history, preferences, interests and detailed care needs. This helped staff provide more individualised support.
“People's care records now contained more detail and information about each person, their life history, their likes and dislikes, hobbies and interests” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff spend time talking with people, listen to them and support their choices. People were supported with dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff encouraged people to make decisions about what they wished to do and respected people's choices about this.” from the report
Improved activities
The home had a dedicated activities coordinator and inspectors observed group and one-to-one activities. People were encouraged to join in but could choose not to.
“There was now a dedicated activities co-ordinator for this service, to design and deliver activities specific to people's interests and preferences.” from the report
Supervision was not regular
needs fixingStaff had not been receiving supervision meetings at regular intervals. The provider had identified this and scheduled meetings, but the improvement was not yet fully established.
“We found staff had not been having supervision at regular intervals.” from the report
No registered manager in post
needs fixingThe home did not have a registered manager when inspectors visited. The current manager had submitted an application after the inspection, which was still being processed.
“The service did not have a registered manager in post.” from the report
Some decisions were too slow
seriousInspectors found that the provider did not act promptly enough when concerns were raised about whether a staff member was suitable to support people. The provider later took action and said it needed to respond more quickly in future.
“The provider did not take prompt and appropriate action when concerns were raised about the suitability of a staff member to help protect people.” from the report
Improvements not yet proven over time
needs fixingMany changes had been made only in the months before the inspection. Inspectors could not yet judge whether good practice would be maintained consistently.
“Many of the positive changes and improvements we found had been made in the months prior to our inspection” from the report
- 01Has the manager's application to become the registered manager been approved, and who is legally responsible for the home while it is being processed?
- 02How often do staff now receive supervision meetings, and how do you check that every staff member receives them?
- 03What steps do you take when concerns are raised about a staff member's suitability to work with residents?
- 04How do you check that the recent improvements in care records, activities, complaints and safety practice are being maintained over time?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care, activities and any concerns about the service?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that considered the overall service, including care and the premises, and assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Acorn Lodge - Croydon
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.