CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aquarius Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control arrangements, including visitors, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 17 older people, some living with dementia. This was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors visited on 12 February 2021 to check infection prevention and control. The visit was announced. They found staff had training in COVID-19, infection control and the correct use of protective equipment.
Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, outbreak planning and the infection control policy. The home was inspected but not rated overall.
Staff infection control training
Staff had completed COVID-19 and infection control training, including detailed distance learning.
“Staff had completed training on COVID 19 and infection control including in depth distance learning.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had training in using protective equipment, and inspectors saw it being used in line with guidance. The manager said supplies were available at all times.
“On the day of inspection staff were using PPE in line with guidance.” from the report
Contact with loved ones
The home supported people to keep in touch through window visits, video calls and phone calls. A summer house had also been provided for visits when government guidance allowed.
“Staff supported them to make video or phone calls.” from the report
Reduced movement in and out
Staff had changed their shifts to reduce the number of people entering and leaving the home.
“Staff had changed their shifts to minimise the number of people in and out of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently manage visits while preventing infections from entering or spreading in the home?
- 02What training do staff receive in using protective equipment, and how do you check that it is used correctly?
- 03How are people and staff tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 04How do you safely admit new residents and manage any infection outbreak?
- 05How do you keep the infection prevention and control policy up to date?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the other four care questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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, February 2019
Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement because some management checks were not recorded.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 9 January 2019. One inspector reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff records, complaints and accident logs. They spoke with eight people, staff and the manager, and observed care.
People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines, suitable risk assessments and kind, respectful support. The home had also been refurbished and was clean and well maintained.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the registered manager carried out checks but did not record them clearly. This was an improvement from the previous Requires Improvement rating, and the earlier legal breaches had been resolved.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and helpful. Inspectors saw staff listening, comforting people and respecting privacy before entering rooms.
“The atmosphere at the service was friendly and relaxed.” from the report
Improved safety
The home had improved its risk assessments, staff recruitment checks and medicines management since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found that there were guidelines in place for staff to follow and the service was no longer in breach.” from the report
Good staff support
There were enough staff, with induction, shadowing, competency checks and training relevant to people's needs.
“New staff followed a robust induction programme, followed by a period of shadowing and competency assessments before being able to work with people alone.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose how they spent their time, what they ate and which activities they joined. Inspectors saw people enjoying activities at the home.
“We saw people engaged and enthused whilst taking part in a game of skittles.” from the report
Improved environment
The home had undergone substantial redecoration and repair. Inspectors found it clean, fresh-smelling and well maintained.
“At this inspection, we found that the service had undergone significant refurbishment, with new carpets and redecoration throughout, the service was free from odour and well-maintained.” from the report
Management checks were not recorded
needs fixingThe registered manager carried out checks, but did not keep records of when they happened, what was found or what action was taken. A new manager's audit had been developed after the inspection.
“The registered manager carried out checks, however these were not recorded so we were unable to determine how often these checks took place, what shortfalls, if any were identified and what action was taken to address them.” from the report
Care plans could be clearer
needs fixingCare plans were detailed but dates and changes were sometimes confusing. This could make it harder to identify the newest information.
“However, information was not always clear as dates of entries were mixed up and it was unclear what information had been added or changed following a review.” from the report
Limited dementia-friendly design
minorThe refurbishment did not include enough signs or colour contrast to help people with dementia find their way around or distinguish walls and handrails.
“There was not signage around the property and the colours used in communal areas were light with minimal contrast between walls and hand rails.” from the report
End-of-life preferences were incomplete
needs fixingSome people had funeral plans, but there was limited or no information about their preferences for end-of-life care. The manager had started advance planning discussions after the inspection.
“Some people had funeral plans, however there was limited or no information about people's preferences at the end of their lives.” from the report
- 01How are the registered manager's checks recorded now, and how do you make sure any problems are fixed?
- 02How have you improved the clarity of care plans, including showing the latest changes after reviews?
- 03What changes have been made to signage and colour contrast for people with dementia?
- 04How do you record and regularly review each person's end-of-life wishes?
- 05What improvements have been made since the previous inspection, and how are they being checked?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, following the home's previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 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 Aquarius Lodge
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 August 2016.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.