CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Alpine Lodge RCH Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and kept up to date. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, safeguarding, equipment and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. People were helped to access healthcare, maintain their health, eat and drink well, and make their own decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff spent time talking with people and supported them to make choices about their daily lives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, communication needs and mental health support. People were supported to maintain relationships, receive visitors and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible management, clear responsibilities, audits and good communication. One section says the service was 'not always well-led', although the detailed findings describe positive management and improvement systems.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the last inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 18 October 2022. They spoke with nine people and five staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good. People told inspectors they felt happy and safe. Inspectors found safe medicines practice, enough staff, suitable training, good healthcare support and detailed care plans.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in January 2020. Earlier problems involving risk management, staff training, consent, dignity, personalised care and management systems were no longer breaches at this inspection.
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, disposed of and recorded safely. The home also had guidance for using medicines prescribed only when needed.
“Medicines were ordered, stored and disposed of safely and securely. Staff recorded medicines following administration.” from the report
Kind relationships
People described the home positively. Inspectors saw relaxed and friendly interactions, with staff spending time chatting and offering reassurance.
“People looked relaxed, happy and comfortable with staff supporting them.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, backgrounds and mental health needs. Staff had guidance on how to support each person.
“Care plans were person centred and detailed people's likes and dislikes and how best to deliver care and support.” from the report
Improvement since last inspection
The home moved from Requires Improvement to Good overall. Inspectors said the earlier breaches in several areas had been addressed.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the services' overall rating is now good.” from the report
Unclear wording about leadership
minorThe well-led section gives a Good rating but also says the service was not always well-led. The detailed evidence is mainly positive and does not set out a specific current failure.
“The service was not always well-led. Details are in our well-Led findings below.” from the report
- 01How would you update my relative's mental health risk assessment if their needs or behaviour changed?
- 02What support would my relative receive to go out into the community and maintain important relationships?
- 03How often are care plans, medicines records and risk assessments reviewed for each person?
- 04What training and supervision would staff supporting my relative receive?
- 05How would the home's four floors, stairs and shared bathrooms work for my relative's needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; no one was receiving end of life care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 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, January 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff and some safe practices, but identified serious gaps in risk management, care planning, training and governance.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 26 and 28 November 2019. They spoke with eight people, three staff and four healthcare professionals, reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records, and looked at the building and care provided.
People said they were happy, felt safe with staff and enjoyed the food. Staff were described as kind, friendly and supportive. However, risk assessments and care plans were incomplete or out of date. Staff lacked specialised training for mental health needs and epilepsy.
Inspectors found people were not always involved in their care, treated with dignity, or supported in the least restrictive way. Quality checks were not strong enough to identify and fix problems. All five ratings were Requires Improvement, down from Good at the previous inspection published on 2 June 2017.
Kind staff
People said staff were kind and caring. Staff knew people well and showed interest in what they were doing.
“Each person told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Food and choice
People enjoyed the food and said they had a good choice. Their specific dietary needs were known and catered for.
“People told us they had a good choice of what they wanted to eat.” from the report
Medicines records
The records checked showed that medicines had been given as prescribed. Medicines were also stored at a safe temperature.
“Medicines were managed safely. Records were fully completed to show people had received their medicines as they should.” from the report
People's independence
People were supported to go out, work, volunteer, manage some household tasks and attend appointments independently.
“Some people were encouraged to attend medical appointments on their own.” from the report
Incomplete risk management
seriousImportant risks were known but not always assessed or recorded. This included risks linked to behaviour, diabetes, epilepsy, smoking and fire safety.
“Risks associated with people's care were not always managed. Some risks were known but not documented.” from the report
Insufficient specialist training
seriousStaff had not received specialised training for mental health needs, managing risky behaviour or epilepsy. This could make support inconsistent or unsafe.
“Staff had not completed specialised training in supporting people with mental health needs or epilepsy.” from the report
Poorly personalised care plans
seriousCare plans did not give enough detail about people's preferences, goals, needs or how staff should support them. Some information was out of date.
“People's care and support had not been designed to achieve their preferences and meet their needs.” from the report
Dignity and respect
seriousSome language in records was not respectful, and inspectors observed an interaction that was not caring. Access to the kitchen and hot drinks was also restricted at some times.
“People were not always treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems had not found or addressed several problems. Records were not always up to date or easy to access.
“Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate good governance.” from the report
Environment and communication
needs fixingSome areas needed refurbishment, and the manager was not aware of the Accessible Information Standard. Inspectors made recommendations about both issues.
“Some areas of the service were in need of redecoration.” from the report
- 01What has been done to update every person's risk assessment, especially for diabetes, epilepsy, smoking, fire safety and behaviours that may put people at risk?
- 02What specialised mental health, behaviour-management and epilepsy training have staff completed since the inspection?
- 03How are people now involved in writing and reviewing their care plans, including their goals, preferences, communication needs and activities?
- 04How does the home check that the Mental Capacity Act and best-interest decision-making are followed?
- 05What changes have been made to quality checks, complaint records, the building and the home's language about people?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, including the premises and care provided, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2020 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 Alpine Lodge RCH Limited
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.