CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Boulevard Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found risk assessments, equipment checks, safe recruitment and safe medicines systems. Wardrobes had not been secured after decoration, but the home said they were made safe shortly after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff training, food and health support were generally suitable. Inspectors raised a concern about conflicting information in one DoLS application and found limited evidence that less restrictive options had been explored.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff supported privacy, independence and personal choices, and people and relatives gave positive feedback.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people were supported with individual preferences, outings and complaints. Inspectors also found limited sustained interaction and that more activities and stimulation were needed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider were described as supportive and audits were in place. However, records of provider visits and access to residents' meeting minutes were not yet in place, and people had not completed satisfaction surveys.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some issues around choice, activities and least-restrictive care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 March 2019 by two inspectors. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional, and checked care plans, medicines and safety records.
The home was rated Good overall. The report gives Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with respect, received personalised care, and were supported with medicines, food, health needs and complaints.
There were some shortfalls. Inspectors found conflicting information about one person's risks and limited evidence that less restrictive options had been considered. They also noted limited activities and interaction, a cluttered bathroom, and that people had not been asked about recent decoration choices.
The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 5 August 2016. The report says it remained Good overall, although it identifies some concerns under Effective.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were kind and polite. Inspectors saw people being treated respectfully and attended to promptly.
“Staff are kind and speak nicely, they are always polite, they knock on the door before entering.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences and daily choices. Staff supported individual routines, interests and outings.
“Care plans were personalised and contained guidance to support people's individual needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicine records and stock counts were accurate. Inspectors found enough staff on duty and appropriate recruitment checks.
“People's medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and free from unpleasant smells. The kitchen had a five-star food hygiene rating.
“The home was clean and odour free.” from the report
Responsive management
The home used feedback and complaints to make changes, including appointing an activities coordinator and changing meal times.
“The registered manager used consultation and feedback to make improvements.” from the report
Restrictions and decision-making
needs fixingInspectors found conflicting information about one person's risks and not enough evidence that less restrictive options had been explored. External professional advice was sought after the inspection.
“There was conflicting information regarding identified risks and a lack of evidence that less restrictive options had been explored.” from the report
Limited activities and interaction
needs fixingOne relative's feedback mentioned a lack of stimulation and activities. Inspectors did not see sustained interaction between staff and people beyond task-related conversations.
“We did not observe any sustained interaction between staff and people, other than short conversations that staff had with people when they attended to specific tasks.” from the report
Limited involvement in the environment
minorPeople were not invited to give their views about recent decoration. Cleaning items and other objects were also stored in the bathroom, making it look cluttered.
“The bathroom was being used to store cleaning items and other objects.” from the report
Incomplete governance records
minorThe provider's weekly visits were not recorded at the time. Residents' meeting minutes were not available for people or relatives to read, and residents had not completed satisfaction surveys.
“We did not see any written record of these visits but were informed that recorded visits would be introduced.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and review decisions where a person's liberty or choices are restricted?
- 02How do you show that less restrictive options have been considered before restrictions are used?
- 03What regular activities are now available, and how do residents choose them?
- 04How do residents and relatives see the minutes from meetings and give feedback about the home?
- 05Are provider visits now recorded, and how are actions from audits and visits followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, covering the premises and the care provided, with ratings given for all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 May 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 Boulevard Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 December 2012.
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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.