CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Burgh Heath Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control arrangements, including cleaning, PPE, testing, visiting and managing outbreaks. The provider also said it had measures to reduce risks from COVID-19-related staff pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, safe visiting arrangements and appropriate COVID-19 precautions.
This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether staffing pressures were affecting people. The inspection was announced.
Inspectors found the home was clean and tidy. It had cleaning schedules for frequently touched areas, staff used protective equipment correctly, and staff had received infection control training.
The home had arrangements for safe visits, testing, social distancing and admitting people. Inspectors were also assured that the home could prevent or manage outbreaks and had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19 staff pressures.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with scheduled cleaning of frequently touched areas to support infection control.
“There were robust cleaning schedules inclusive of high touch point areas, to promote safe infection control practices.” from the report
Staff PPE and training
Staff had received infection control training and inspectors saw them using protective equipment correctly.
“Staff were observed to be wearing PPE correctly.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home had procedures for visiting and had supported regular visits safely during the pandemic.
“The registered manager has facilitated visits for people safely and regularly during the pandemic.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had arrangements to reduce the risk of outbreaks, including separating areas when needed.
“The registered manager had managed risks to people from outbreaks through appropriate isolation and separation of areas within the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing any COVID-19-related staffing pressures, and what effect have they had on people living here?
- 02What are the current visiting arrangements, including checks for visiting professionals?
- 03How do you respond if there is an infection outbreak, and how are areas separated when needed?
- 04How do you make sure staff use PPE correctly and keep their infection control training up to date?
- 05How are testing arrangements managed for people living here and for staff?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it did not rate the other four questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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, November 2018
Burgh Heath Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a small gap in end-of-life planning.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 October 2018. One inspector spoke with three people, all four staff present, healthcare professionals and reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records, incidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, clean surroundings and clear risk assessments.
People were described as receiving kind, individual care. Staff supported people's health, choices, independence, activities and contact with family and friends. The home had remained Good since the previous inspection, so the report was written in a shorter format.
Stable staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The staff team was stable, with management available on site for support.
“There were always two care staff present at the home and the owner and registered manager were also available on site to provide guidance and practical support when needed.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and given by trained staff. Records showed when medicines had been administered, including as-required medicines.
“There were no gaps in the medicine administration records (MARs) so it was clear when people had been given their medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were calm, patient and attentive. They respected people's privacy and allowed people to make choices at their own pace.
“We don't push people to do things, it's in their own time.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's histories, preferences, communication needs and interests. People were supported to take part in activities and outings they chose.
“People's care was personalised to them and met their individual needs.” from the report
Good management
Records were clear and organised. The home used audits, meetings and surveys to monitor quality and gather views.
“There was good governance in place and record keeping was organised and clear.” from the report
End-of-life plans could be fuller
minorInspectors suggested that care plans should include people's preferred place of care and more detail about how they wished to be cared for at the end of life. The manager agreed to consider this and involve families where possible.
“We suggested the plans could be developed to include people's preferred place of care and any wishes for how they wanted to be cared for.” from the report
- 01How have you developed people's end-of-life plans since this inspection?
- 02How do you involve families when recording a person's preferred place of care and end-of-life wishes?
- 03What improvements have been made to the conservatory step and access for people whose mobility has changed?
- 04How do you make sure there are always enough staff and enough experience to meet people's future needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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 Burgh Heath Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2011.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.