CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bryony Lodge
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Bryony Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 safety practices but gaps in infection control planning and risk assessments.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 March 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors found that staff used protective equipment properly, followed social distancing as much as possible, and supported safe admissions and regular testing. The home was clean, with frequent cleaning of commonly touched surfaces.
There were some gaps. The COVID-19 policy needed more detail, individual risk assessments for clinically vulnerable people were not in place, and daily checks did not cover all infection control areas. The manager said work to address these issues had started.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas normally considered.
Safe use of PPE
Staff had received relevant training and were using the required PPE during the inspection.
“Throughout our inspection staff were wearing the required levels of PPE and maintaining social distancing as much as possible.” from the report
Safe admissions and testing
New residents were tested, isolated on arrival and supported according to the guidance described in the report. Staff and residents were tested regularly.
“New admissions to the service were supported in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had cleaning schedules and frequently touched surfaces were cleaned several times a day.
“Cleaning schedules evidenced regular cleaning had been taking place within the service.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
Staff provided activities in the home and spent time with residents to reduce isolation during the pandemic.
“Staff had worked hard to support people's wellbeing during the pandemic by providing in-house activities” from the report
Policy needed more detail
needs fixingThe COVID-19 infection control policy did not give staff enough detail. The manager said they planned to address this.
“The policy regarding COVID-19 required more detail to ensure clear guidance was available to staff.” from the report
Missing individual risk assessments
needs fixingRisk assessments were not in place for people and staff who might be clinically vulnerable if they caught COVID-19. The manager began putting these in place after the inspection.
“Individual risk assessments for people and staff who may be clinically vulnerable if they caught COVID-19 were not in place.” from the report
Incomplete infection control checks
needs fixingThe daily spot check did not cover every infection control or COVID-19 management area. The manager said they planned to introduce a more effective audit.
“The provider ensured a daily spot check regarding infection control processes took place, however this did not cover all areas of infection control processes or COVID-19 management.” from the report
- 01Has the COVID-19 infection control policy been updated to give staff the detail they need?
- 02Are individual risk assessments now in place for residents who may be clinically vulnerable to COVID-19?
- 03How often are infection control audits completed, and do they cover every area of COVID-19 management?
- 04How are residents supported if visits are restricted during an outbreak?
- 05What ratings did the home receive at its previous full inspection, and have any recommendations from that inspection been completed?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak; it did not assess the other main areas of care quality. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with strong management and no major shortfalls identified.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 5 September 2018. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files, accident records and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people felt safe and were supported by enough suitably trained staff. Medicines, infection control and risks were managed safely. People received support with food, drink and healthcare, and their rights and choices were respected.
Staff were described as kind and respectful. Care plans gave detailed information about people's needs and preferences. The home offered activities, involved families and had a complaints process. The provider and registered manager were actively involved, and the home had systems to monitor quality.
This was the first inspection since the service was registered with this provider in November 2017. The home received a Good rating in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
Skilled and supported staff
New staff completed an induction and shadowing. Existing staff received training, supervision and, where needed, support to develop their skills.
“New staff completed a structured induction programme before being allowed to work on their own.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, protected their privacy and dignity, and encouraged them to do as much as possible for themselves.
“Without exception, all interactions we observed between people and staff were positive and supportive.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, health needs and abilities. People and their families were involved where appropriate.
“People's care plans were well-organised, reflective of people's needs and provided comprehensive information to enable staff to deliver care and support in a personalised way.” from the report
Open management
The provider and registered manager were involved in day-to-day work. Staff felt supported and the home used audits and feedback to improve.
“We observed a positive, open culture throughout the inspection and saw that staff spoke to each other and the registered manager with kindness and respect.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's specific physical disability, mobility and health risks?
- 02How would you support my relative if their health deteriorated or they needed end of life care?
- 03How are families involved in care plan reviews and told about changes in needs?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How do you check that medicines continue to be given safely and that care plans stay up to date?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 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 Bryony Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 November 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.