CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Appleby Lodge
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; a targeted review found good infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 7 January 2021. This was a targeted inspection looking at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
They found the building was clean, communal areas had safe distancing arrangements and signs explained when personal protective equipment was needed. Staff and residents had access to testing, and infection control policies had been updated.
The home used an in-house system to track which staff had worked with each resident. Families could meet relatives safely, and staff helped people keep in touch through phone and video calls.
The service was marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the visit checked infection control arrangements only and did not give a standard overall quality rating.
Clean and safer surroundings
The building was clean, with distancing arrangements and clear signs about protective equipment and infection risks.
“The building was clean, and there were appropriate procedures to ensure any infection control risks were minimised.” from the report
Good infection control systems
The home had updated policies, staff training and a system for tracking staff contact with residents during an outbreak.
“This included introducing an in-house 'Track and Trace' system to monitor which staff member had been working with a person living in service.” from the report
Support for family contact
Staff supported safe visits and helped residents stay in contact with relatives and friends by telephone and video calls.
“Staff helped people to stay in touch with family and friends through phone and video calls.” from the report
Emotional support
Residents and staff could receive extra support through one-to-one meetings and telephone contact.
“The registered manager ensured people living in the service, and staff, had access to additional support, including one-to-one meetings and contact by phone, to offer any emotional support needed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently track which staff have worked with each resident if someone tests positive?
- 02How often are your infection prevention and control policies reviewed and staff training refreshed?
- 03How are visits with relatives arranged now, and what happens if there is an infection outbreak?
- 04How do you support residents who choose to stay in their rooms or find distancing difficult?
- 05What are the home's current ratings and findings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; it did not assess the other four questions or give a standard overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 2021 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, March 2019
Appleby Lodge is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records and governance still needing improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 13 March 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, respected and treated with kindness. Staff were said to be well trained, and the atmosphere was warm and welcoming.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement. Medicines systems and environmental safety had improved. However, some health risk records and employment histories were not always complete, and inspectors recommended stronger checks of the home's governance.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, helpful and welcoming. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity and involved in their care.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Safer medicines systems
The home had introduced new checks after previous medicine errors and inspection feedback. Inspectors found that medicines were now managed safely.
“People's medicines were now managed safely. New systems to check the safe administration of people's medicines had been introduced.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's health, social and communication needs. People were encouraged to enjoy activities, outings and links with their community.
“People received personalised care and support specific to their needs and preferences. Each person was seen as an individual.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The provider had acted on previous problems and developed systems to monitor quality and safety. Inspectors said the improvements showed lessons had been learned.
“The ongoing improvements found at this inspection demonstrated the provider had learnt from past failings” from the report
Some health risk records were missing
needs fixingRisk assessments were not always recorded for health needs such as diabetes or moving and handling. Staff knew how to keep people safe, but the provider said care plans needed immediate review.
“Risks associated with people's health care were not always recorded, for example if someone was diabetic or moving and handling needs.” from the report
Employment histories needed closer checking
needs fixingMost recruitment checks were completed, but employment histories were not always fully scrutinised. This was an area where the provider needed to take action.
“However, action was required to ensure that employment history was being fully scrutinised.” from the report
Governance checks had gaps
needs fixingQuality monitoring systems had improved but had not identified all missing or outdated records. Inspectors recommended strengthening the overall governance system.
“However, despite these systems being in place, they had not been fully effective in identify gaps in employment history and that care records had not always been in place.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every person's health risk assessments, including diabetes and moving and handling risks, are complete and kept up to date?
- 02What checks do you carry out on each applicant's full employment history before they start work?
- 03How do you check that the new medicines systems continue to prevent errors?
- 04What actions have you taken following the recommendation to strengthen governance and quality monitoring?
- 05How are people's personal interests, community activities and communication needs included in their current care plans?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, including care records, medicines, staffing, training and quality checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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 Appleby Lodge
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.