CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Amber Lodge - Lowestoft
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed and managed, staffing was considered sufficient, and medicines were managed safely. Some communal areas, including dining chairs and toilets, needed better cleaning.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission and staff received training, supervision and competency checks. People were supported with eating, drinking, healthcare and day-to-day decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in care planning and supported to make choices and remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's routines, preferences, communication needs and interests in detail. People were supported with activities, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, meetings and checks covering areas such as medicines, cleanliness, care planning and building maintenance. Inspectors found the quality assurance system could identify areas for improvement.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some communal areas needed better cleaning.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 October 2019. One inspector spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked care records, staff files, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, detailed care plans, respectful support and activities suited to people's interests.
Inspectors found some dining chairs and toilets were not clean enough. The home had identified this through its audits and had plans to improve it. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection, published in June 2017, and remained Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels appropriate and saw that staff had time to support people meaningfully, including taking them out.
“There were enough staff to spend meaningful time with people and this included taking them out to places of their choice.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's needs, routines, preferences and individuality in detail, helping staff provide individual support.
“Care records were very personalised and reflected people's needs and individuality in sufficient detail, including the specific routines staff needed to follow.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were supported to attend clubs and day services, pursue hobbies and take part in activities that matched their wishes.
“People were supported to take part in activities of their choice and to live full and active lives.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were managed and administered safely. Extra checks were introduced after a change in the pharmacy's medicines system.
“Medicines were managed, monitored and administered safely.” from the report
People's involvement
People were involved in decisions about meals, the home, holidays, new staff and whether a new person would move in.
“People had been involved in discussions about someone new moving into the service.” from the report
Communal cleaning
needs fixingDining chairs were soiled and some toilets were not sufficiently clean. The shortfall had been identified and plans were in place to address it.
“Some improvements were required to the cleaning of communal areas.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to 13 people and was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the design and surrounding homes helped reduce the negative impact.
“However. the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to clean the dining chairs and toilets, and how often are these areas now checked?
- 02How are the extra medicines checks working since the pharmacy system changed?
- 03How will staffing levels be adjusted if people's needs change or more people move in?
- 04How will people living here be involved in decisions about any future admissions?
- 05How are people's individual communication methods and routines kept up to date in their care records?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the home, its premises and personal care, with all five CQC questions assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the home remaining Good since its previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection carried out on 5 and 11 April 2017. One inspector spoke with six people using the service, three care staff and the managers. They also reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found that people felt safe and that risks and medicines were managed properly. There were enough staff, and staff had suitable training and support. People were supported with food, drink, health care and decisions about their lives.
People described staff as kind and respectful. Care was tailored to people's needs, preferences and interests. People were supported to stay independent, join activities and give their views about the home.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection and remained Good.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were handled safely and that people received them as intended.
“Medicines continued to be stored, managed and administered safely.” from the report
Enough staff
People and staff said staffing levels were suitable. The home had increased staffing after one person's support needs changed.
“People told us and we observed that there continued to be enough staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed speaking with people in a friendly and thoughtful way. People's privacy and requests for personal time were respected.
“We observed that staff continued to engage with people in a friendly and thoughtful manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's interests and preferences. People were supported to take part in activities and maintain community and social links.
“The service continued to ensure that people's care records were personalised to include information about them, such as their hobbies, interests, preferences and life history.” from the report
People's views acted on
People could discuss activities, meals and household matters. The home used their suggestions to make changes.
“We saw that things people suggested in meetings such as activities or new meals for the menu's were actioned.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you review staffing levels when a person's support needs change?
- 02How will you involve my relative in writing and reviewing their care plan?
- 03What activities and community opportunities could be provided for my relative based on their interests?
- 04How do you support people to make their own decisions and follow the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 05How do your audits identify and resolve any shortfalls in the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 2017 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 Amber Lodge - Lowestoft
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.