CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Blandford Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Blandford Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safer, kinder and more personalised care, and the home left Special Measures.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 March 2022. One inspector met all three residents and staff, observed care, checked care plans, staff records, audits and medicines, and partly toured the home. Infection prevention measures were also checked.
The overall rating and all five key ratings were Good. People were generally happy, felt at home and had good relationships with staff. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, personalised care, support with health needs, activities, meals and contact with friends and family.
The previous inspection had rated the service Inadequate and found breaches involving safeguarding, safe care, medicines, infection control, person-centred care and governance. Inspectors found enough improvement at this visit, so the home was no longer in breach and was no longer in Special Measures.
Improved safety
The home had improved its safeguarding, risk management, medicines and infection control systems since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection, we found enough improvements had been made and the provider was no longer breaching Regulation 13.” from the report
Kind relationships
People were comfortable with staff and inspectors saw kind, respectful and personalised interactions.
“People were well treated by staff. They had good relationships with the staff and liked them.” from the report
Personalised support
People could make choices about their care, food and activities. Their rooms and support reflected their preferences.
“People received personalised care which met their needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities in the home and community, and to stay in touch with friends and family.
“People were supported to stay in touch with friends and families.” from the report
Stronger oversight
New audits, meetings and incident reviews helped the provider monitor quality and learn from problems.
“The provider had systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check that the improvements to medicines management are still being followed?
- 02How are residents' money and financial records checked and protected now?
- 03How often are care plans, risk assessments and audits reviewed, and who checks the results?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough experienced staff when staff work across the provider's other services?
- 05What activities and community links would be available for my relative, based on their interests?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2022 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, October 2021
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, money-management and leadership failures.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 July 2021. One inspector met all three people living at the home, spoke with two people and two care workers, and checked medicines, care records, finances, staffing and parts of the environment.
The home was not safe. Medicines were stored in unlocked cupboards and records were incomplete. There were also environmental and infection-control risks. Financial records did not explain large withdrawals and spending, so inspectors raised a safeguarding alert with the local authority.
People's needs were not always met. There were too few staff to support some activities, limited meaningful activity and little therapeutic support for mental health. The provider's checks had failed to find serious problems, so the home was not well-led.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in 2017 to Inadequate. Safe and Well-led were rated Inadequate, and Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were not inspected on this occasion.
Some people felt happy
Two people said they liked living at the home. One person said they liked the staff.
“Two of the people who lived at the service and both care workers we met told us they were happy at the service.” from the report
Staff knew some people well
Inspectors saw staff talking with two people, offering choices and showing knowledge of them.
“The staff engaged nicely with two of the people who lived at the service. They sat and talked to them, offered them choices and knew them well.” from the report
Some infection measures were in place
The home had introduced COVID-19 procedures, supplied protective equipment and arranged regular testing for people and staff.
“There was a programme of regular COVID-19 testing for people using the service and staff.” from the report
Recruitment checks were used
The provider carried out recruitment checks, inductions and assessments for staff.
“The provider had systems to help ensure only suitable staff were recruited.” from the report
Medicines were unsafe
seriousLarge amounts of old and unidentified medicines were kept in unlocked cupboards. Administration records had gaps and did not explain some refusals or changes.
“Medicines were not managed in a safe way. Large amounts of medicines were stored at the home in unlocked cupboards.” from the report
People's money was not properly accounted for
seriousFinancial records were incomplete and some withdrawals and spending could not be explained. CQC raised a safeguarding alert with the local authority.
“There were large amounts of expenditure and cash withdrawals from people's bank accounts that had not been correctly recorded and therefore this expenditure could not be accounted for.” from the report
Safety and infection risks
seriousInspectors found unlocked sharp knives, damaged doors, expired first-aid supplies, unsafe food storage and gaps in infection-control practice.
“Failure to properly store, label or monitor food meant there was a risk people may become unwell from bad food.” from the report
Limited activities and support
needs fixingPeople did not regularly receive varied, meaningful or therapeutic activities. Some planned community and mental health support had not happened or was not recorded.
“Records indicated that people were not regularly supported to access meaningful and varied activities.” from the report
Too little staff cover at times
needs fixingOnly one staff member was usually on duty, which made it difficult to manage incidents and support people to go out while also remaining with others.
“There was only one member of staff on duty at any time (apart from handovers).” from the report
Poor oversight
seriousAudits had not found serious problems with medicines, finances, the environment or records. Incident records did not consistently show learning or changes to support.
“This demonstrated a serious lack of oversight resulting in a service which was not safe.” from the report
- 01What has been done to secure medicines and make sure all medicine administration records are complete and accurate?
- 02How are people's bank accounts, cash withdrawals and spending now checked, and how were the concerns raised with the local authority resolved?
- 03How many staff are on duty at different times, and how can people get out for activities while others remain safely supported?
- 04What meaningful and therapeutic activities are now available for each person?
- 05How are incidents, mental health changes and advice from health professionals recorded and followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not looked at, and their ratings were not given. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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.
Every inspection of Blandford Lodge
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hillingdon
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 £1,320 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.