CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brownhill Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control. They found arrangements for visitors, protective equipment, testing, safe admissions, isolation, ventilation and hygiene.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures protected people and visitors from COVID-19.
This was a targeted inspection on 5 March 2021 during the coronavirus pandemic. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures, including visits, protective equipment, testing, admissions and hygiene.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. Visitors received clear instructions, staff followed protective equipment and social distancing guidance, and people could see relatives in the garden or use phone and video calls.
The home had an up-to-date infection control policy. Inspectors also found suitable arrangements for isolation rooms, ventilation, hygiene, risk assessments and protecting staff who were more vulnerable to COVID-19.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full quality rating for the home or ratings for all five questions.
Visitor infection control
Visitors received clear information and instructions. Staff followed protective equipment and social distancing guidance.
“Information and instructions for visitors were clearly displayed and explained in person by the receptionist.” from the report
Family contact
People could meet relatives in the garden where possible. Phone and video calls were offered when garden visits were not possible.
“People were supported to see their visitors in the garden, or when this was not possible people were supported to speak to their families on the phone or via video call.” from the report
Isolation and hygiene
The home had an up-to-date policy covering isolation rooms. Inspectors found that ventilation, space and hygiene practices supported safety.
“The service was well ventilated, and the layout, use of space and hygiene practice promoted safety.” from the report
Protection of vulnerable staff
The home had risk assessments for staff and people who might be more vulnerable to COVID-19. A furlough arrangement was available where it was not safe for staff to work.
“The provider had ensured staff who were more vulnerable to COVID-19 had a risk assessment in place for staff and people who use the service” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now for visitors?
- 02How are people admitted safely from hospital or the community now?
- 03How are COVID-19 or other infection outbreaks prevented and managed?
- 04When can relatives visit in person, and what happens if a garden visit is not possible?
- 05What is the home's current full CQC rating and has there been a later inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other quality questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas they assessed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 and 21 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They observed care, meals and medicines, and reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
The home supported up to 21 people and 18 people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by trained staff. Medicines, staffing, risk assessments, safeguarding and infection control were managed well.
People's care plans reflected their needs, choices and life histories. Staff supported nutrition, healthcare, activities, spiritual needs and end-of-life preferences. The home had a complaints process and systems for checking quality and making improvements.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection on 21 June 2016.
Up-to-date risk planning
Risk assessments covered areas such as falls, moving and handling, eating and drinking, pressure sores and wound care. They gave staff detailed guidance to reduce risks.
“The risk assessments we reviewed, were all up to date and had detailed guidance for staff to reduce risks.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Records were up to date, medicines were stored safely and checks were carried out.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) were up to date and the medicine administered was clearly recorded.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff communicated compassionately, protected people's privacy and dignity, and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“We observed staff communicating with people in a caring and compassionate manner throughout the time of our inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, life stories, interests, health needs and social needs. Activities were arranged around people's interests.
“Staff had developed care plans for people based upon their assessed needs.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care and make improvements. Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager.
“The service had an effective system and process to assess and monitor the quality of the care people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks, including falls, moving and handling, nutrition and skin care?
- 02How will you support my relative with medicines, and how do you check that medicines are given safely?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, background and level of dementia?
- 04How will you involve me and my relative in care plan reviews and decisions about care?
- 05How will you support my relative's oral health and access to dental care?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service covering all five ratings, with additional detailed review of oral health support. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 January 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 Brownhill Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2010.
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.