CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aykroyd Lodge
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some risks were not fully assessed or managed, including falls and skin care risks. Medicines were mostly managed safely, but topical cream records and as-needed medicine instructions were not always clear.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutritional and training needs were generally well supported. However, capacity assessments and consent forms had not been reviewed for a long time, and the environment needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect, offered choices and encouraged independence. Relatives spoke positively about the care.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans were not always person-centred or up to date, and some specific health-condition plans were missing. Activities, communication support and community trips were positive.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Governance systems did not always identify concerns or show that risks were dealt with. Staff and relatives were positive about the manager, and staff meetings and supervision were taking place.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but identified serious gaps in risk records and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 and 25 October 2023. One inspector spoke with a resident, a relative and seven staff. They also observed care, toured the building and checked records about medicines, risks, staffing, incidents, maintenance and management.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities and could accommodate up to five. Inspectors found people were treated with dignity, had choices and were supported by enough staff. Food, activities, communication support and access to healthcare were also positive.
However, some safety risks were not properly assessed or recorded. Care plans and consent records were out of date. Medicines records needed improvement, and the home’s checks did not always identify problems or show what action had been taken.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in January 2018, to Requires Improvement. The home breached regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance. CQC will ask for an action plan and continue to monitor progress.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff to support people without rushing. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“During our inspection, we observed sufficient staff were deployed to meet people's needs and people received support in an unrushed and timely manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated well and staff supported their choices, privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated well and their individuality was respected. The manager and staff knew people well.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff encouraged people to make decisions and do things for themselves where possible.
“People were supported to make their own decisions where possible and staff encouraged independence.” from the report
Activities and community life
People had activities, a sensory room and frequent trips into the community. Staff checked whether people enjoyed these activities.
“Trips out into the community were frequent and the staff assessed whether people enjoyed them.” from the report
Risk assessments were missing or out of date
seriousThere were no falls or skin care risk assessments despite people being at risk. Existing assessments were not always updated after accidents or changes in need.
“There were no falls risk assessments or skin care risk assessments in place, despite people being at risk in these areas.” from the report
Quality checks did not lead to action
seriousAudits did not always find the problems inspectors identified. When concerns were found, there was limited evidence of action to reduce future risks.
“The provider had failed to operate effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Care plans were not current
needs fixingCare plans did not always contain enough information about people's current needs, health conditions, goals and preferences.
“Care plans were not always person centred as they did not contain sufficient information to guide staff on people's needs.” from the report
Consent records needed review
needs fixingCapacity assessments and consent forms had not been reviewed or updated for a long period. This meant the home could not be sure that records reflected people's ability to consent.
“Capacity assessments and consent to care forms had not been reviewed or updated for a long period of time.” from the report
Some medicines guidance was unclear
needs fixingTopical cream charts were sometimes missing or unclear, and creams were not always dated when opened. Instructions for some as-needed medicines did not give enough detail.
“Topical cream charts were not always in place to guide staff and when they were in place, it was not clear where the creams should be applied.” from the report
- 01Have all falls and skin care risk assessments now been completed and reviewed after incidents or changes in need?
- 02Have every resident's care plan, capacity assessment and consent form been reviewed and updated?
- 03What changes have been made to topical cream charts and instructions for as-needed medicines?
- 04How do managers now make sure audits identify problems and record the action taken?
- 05What improvements have been made to the tired environment and limited signage?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home’s premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 2023 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but one recruitment check was incomplete.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 19 December 2017. One inspector spoke with a person using the home, relatives, staff, managers and healthcare professionals. The inspector also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and quality checks.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities, although it could accommodate up to six. Inspectors found that medicines were given safely, staffing levels were sufficient and risks were assessed. People were treated with respect, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
Staff had relevant training and received regular support. Care plans were reviewed and healthcare needs were followed up. The home had a positive culture and systems for relatives to give feedback or make complaints.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the service was meeting the relevant standards at the time of the visit. It was also Good at the previous inspection on 1 September 2015.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and the records checked showed that people received them as prescribed.
“We reviewed medicines' administration records for all people who used the service for the week before the inspection and saw that the records were completed accurately” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw that staff understood people's communication needs and treated them with kindness and respect.
“During the inspection we saw that people were relaxed in the company of staff. We noted that staff were kind and respectful with everyone” from the report
Choice and activities
People were involved in decisions about food, daily routines and activities. The home supported outings, holidays and activities based on people's interests.
“People were encouraged to choose from a range of activities. We saw that people had initiated trips out and were spending time in meaningful activity.” from the report
Individual care planning
The home assessed people's needs before they moved in and reviewed guidance so it reflected current needs and professional advice.
“Information to guide staff on how to support and care for people was reviewed regularly to reflect people's current needs.” from the report
Supportive leadership
The inspection found clear responsibilities, a positive culture and regular quality checks involving managers, staff and relatives.
“There was a positive culture within the home and the registered manager had a good knowledge of the people living there.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment check
needs fixingOne of five recruitment files did not contain a complete enquiry into the applicant's conduct in a previous health and social care role. Further checks were in progress by the end of the inspection.
“However, in one of the files we considered, incomplete enquiry had been made into the applicant's conduct during involvement in a previous health and social care role.” from the report
- 01What further checks were completed on the recruitment file where the previous conduct enquiry was incomplete?
- 02How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks and update their care plan?
- 03How would my relative be supported to communicate choices about food, activities, daily routines and healthcare?
- 04What activities and outings are available, and how are they matched to each person's interests?
- 05How will relatives be involved in care plan reviews, feedback and any complaints?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 2018 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 Aykroyd Lodge
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2014.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.