CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Baring Lodge Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines management, safeguarding systems and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found organised records, regular audits, staff meetings and systems for involving people, relatives and professionals. They recommended improving the process for notifying CQC about relevant incidents.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Baring Lodge Residential Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with a recommendation about reporting incidents to CQC.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 March and 15 April 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led, partly because concerns had been raised about management. They found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from those concerns.
The home was supporting five people with mental health needs and could support six. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines systems and good infection control, including measures for COVID-19.
People and staff gave positive feedback. Records, audits and care planning were generally well organised. The overall rating stayed Good, but the inspection did not reassess Effective, Caring or Responsive. Those ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Risk management
Staff assessed risks linked to mental health relapse, self-neglect, smoking, medicines and physical health. People also had emergency evacuation plans.
“Each person had a risk assessment in place, which identified risks to their health and well-being.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, including references, right-to-work checks and DBS checks, were completed.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's support needs.” from the report
Medicines safety
Medicines were stored securely and administration records were checked. Staff received regular training and competency assessments.
“Medicines were kept and stored safely.” from the report
Infection control
The home had suitable COVID-19 measures, including PPE, testing, vaccination, cleaning and an up-to-date infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Positive involvement
People attended regular meetings about meals, activities and health and safety. Surveys showed satisfaction with the quality of care.
“People attended regular residents' meetings to discuss and become involved with meal planning, social activities and the health and safety of the service.” from the report
Incident notifications
needs fixingThe registered manager had not reported a potential safeguarding incident to CQC. Inspectors recommended reviewing the process so relevant incidents are reported promptly.
“The registered manager had not always notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of incidents that occurred at the service.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every relevant safeguarding incident is notified to CQC on time?
- 02How will you make sure my relative has regular key-working support from a consistent staff member?
- 03How are residents involved in planning meals, activities and health and safety matters?
- 04How do you review medicines records and respond if a person refuses or misses a medicine?
- 05What staffing levels are planned for my relative's specific mental health and personal care needs?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 October 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, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staff appraisals still outstanding.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 September 2018. The inspectors observed the home, spoke with people, a relative, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, recruitment files, rotas, training, medicines and management records.
The home supported four people with mental health conditions and could accommodate up to six people. Inspectors found safeguarding procedures, risk plans, safe recruitment, enough staff and safe medicines systems. Care plans were personalised and people were supported with food, healthcare, activities and staying in touch with people who mattered to them.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. The home had systems to handle complaints and monitor quality. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the first inspection since the home registered in October 2017.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including extra support for appointments and activities. Medicines were checked and managed safely.
“There were enough staff on duty. The staff rota showed there were staff available during the day and night.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and responded calmly when people were distressed. Privacy, dignity and people's preferred ways of being addressed were respected.
“Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's views, health needs and preferences. People and their relatives were involved in reviewing their care.
“Assessments were person-centred and included people's needs, views and opinions on their care.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to choose activities they enjoyed, including activities in the local community. Staff adapted activities to individual interests.
“People attended activities that met their interests and helped them develop new hobbies.” from the report
Appraisals had not started
needs fixingStaff had induction, training and regular supervision, but annual appraisals had not yet taken place. The manager had a plan for these because the service was newly established.
“At the time of the inspection staff had not had an appraisal because this was a newly established and registered service but there was a plan for this in place.” from the report
No end of life care plans
minorCare records did not include end of life care arrangements. Inspectors noted that nobody living at the home needed palliative or end of life care at the time.
“Care records did not address end of life care.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now received their planned annual appraisals?
- 02How would you record and review a person's end of life wishes if their needs changed?
- 03How are people's care plans reviewed when their mental health or other health needs change?
- 04How do you make sure activities continue to reflect each person's interests and choices?
- 05How can a resident or relative raise a complaint, and how will the home respond?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including both the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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 Baring Lodge Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Baring Lodge Residential Home →
- November 2018GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Baring Lodge Residential Home →
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 October 2017.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.