CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Camelot House & Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, visitor checks, testing, PPE, cleaning, safe admissions and outbreak management. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors observed that people appeared comfortable and relaxed.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted management oversight of infection prevention and control.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Camelot House & Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 27 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were screened, testing was in place, people were admitted safely and staff used protective equipment. The home used isolation, zoning and enhanced cleaning to reduce infection risks.
People appeared comfortable and relaxed. People and staff said they felt safe and supported. One minor issue was identified when a staff member had difficulty keeping their mask in place, and management said this would be investigated.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall rating or ratings for the other four areas of care.
Infection controls
Visitors had temperature checks and needed a negative lateral flow test before entering. The home used isolation, zoning and staff allocation to reduce the spread of infection.
“Measures were place to prevent the spread of infection by visitors to the service.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the premises clean and without unpleasant smells. Cleaning and disinfection were recorded daily, with high-touch areas cleaned regularly.
“The premises were clean and odour free throughout.” from the report
Communication with families
Families were kept updated about the situation through emails and phone calls. Visits were arranged in line with the guidance in force at the time.
“The registered manager kept people and families up-to-date with the current situation through regular emails and phone calls.” from the report
Staff support
Staff said they felt supported by managers and colleagues.
“Staff felt well supported by the management team and their colleagues.” from the report
Mask fit
minorOne staff member had difficulty keeping their mask in place. Management said it would investigate whether a different type of mask was needed.
“One member of staff had trouble keeping their mask in place.” from the report
- 01What infection-control and visiting arrangements are in place now?
- 02How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19 or other illness?
- 03What action was taken to resolve the problem with the staff member's mask?
- 04What is the home's current overall CQC rating, including the areas not assessed in this report?
- 05How are families kept informed if there is an infection outbreak or a change to visiting arrangements?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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, February 2020
Camelot House & Lodge was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some medicines and activities arrangements needing improvement.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 10 and 15 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they were happy with the care and felt safe. Staff were described as kind, skilled and respectful.
Inspectors found shortfalls in medicine storage, medicine records and activities for some people. The medicine storage and some records were corrected by the second day. The home was also working to provide more meaningful activities for people who did not join group activities.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with compassion and dignity. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and ways of communicating, and responded sensitively when people became distressed.
“People were supported by staff who were kind, caring and respectful towards them.” from the report
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs, including one-to-one support. Recruitment checks and staff training were in place.
“There were adequate numbers of staff to keep people safe and meet their physical needs” from the report
Good health support
The home worked well with health and social care professionals. Staff recognised changing health needs and followed professional advice, including about swallowing and nutrition.
“The service worked well with health and social care professionals to provide timely care to people.” from the report
Personalised activities and relationships
Many people enjoyed varied group and individual activities linked to their interests. The home also helped people keep in touch with relatives living far away.
“Individual activities were organised. For example, one person had loved to fish.” from the report
Open leadership
Inspectors found strong, approachable management and clear responsibilities. The home used audits, meetings and surveys to monitor quality and respond to suggestions.
“The registered manager and the deputy provided strong leadership and support.” from the report
Compassionate end-of-life care
The report described effective and compassionate support at the end of life. People's wishes were discussed and recorded where possible.
“People received effective, compassionate care at the end of their life.” from the report
Medicine storage and records
seriousAt the start of the inspection, some medicines did not have suitable storage or disposal arrangements. Some 'when required' and covert medicine records were incomplete or unclear. Several issues were corrected by the second day, but managers' audits had not identified them beforehand.
“There were not always suitable arrangements for storing and disposal of medicines, including those needing cold storage and extra security.” from the report
Some people lacked activities
needs fixingAlthough many activities were available, some people did not join group activities and were not involved in activities for long periods. The team was working to improve this.
“Records showed that some people had not been involved in activities for 19, 21 and 26 days respectively over a 28-day period.” from the report
Care plans varied in detail
needs fixingCare plans covered important areas, but some did not give enough detail about people's likes and dislikes. Staff knew people well, but the written information was not consistently comprehensive.
“The personalisation of the care plans was variable, and some were not as comprehensive as others about people's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Plastic plates
minorPeople were given plastic plates at lunchtime. Inspectors said this did not promote respect and dignity. Managers said they planned to replace them with crockery.
“At lunch time people were provided with plastic plates to eat off. This did not promote respect and dignity” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicines needing cold storage or extra security are stored correctly?
- 02How are covert medicines and 'when required' medicines recorded and reviewed?
- 03What individual activities are available for people who do not join group activities?
- 04How do you make sure each person's care plan records their likes, dislikes and preferences in enough detail?
- 05Have the plastic plates been replaced with crockery?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the home and the care provided, with all five CQC questions assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 2020 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 Camelot House & Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015Inspected but not rated
- July 2014Inspected but not rated
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.