CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Camelot Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, appropriate recruitment checks, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and regular safety checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments before admission and staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported with physical and mental health, nutrition and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful and protected people's dignity, privacy and confidentiality. People were supported to make choices and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care and recovery plans reflected people's needs, preferences and goals and were reviewed with them. People could choose activities and knew how to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider and registered manager were visible and approachable. Quality checks and records had improved since the previous inspection and were being used to monitor the service.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with the home improved since its previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 January 2018. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, observed care, checked the building and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home supported up to nine people with long-term mental health needs. People said they felt safe and liked the staff. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and a clean, well-maintained environment.
Care was tailored to people's needs and people were involved in their care plans. Staff supported people with health appointments, daily living skills, activities, education and work opportunities. The five areas inspected were all rated Good.
The previous inspection in December 2016 found two breaches and rated the home Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that recruitment checks, records and quality checks had improved. The supported living and community support parts of the service were not inspected because no one there was receiving regulated personal care.
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered by trained staff and records, storage and audits were checked. Inspectors found the recorded stock matched the medicines held.
“Medicine records were completed well and all medicines administered signed for.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and treated them with warmth and respect. Inspectors saw relaxed interactions and support that protected people's dignity.
“Staff showed a warm, respectful attitude to people and protected people's dignity.” from the report
Building independence
People were supported at their own pace to develop skills such as shopping, cooking, laundry, personal care and managing medicines.
“People were supported and enabled to develop daily living skills and maximise their potential for independent living.” from the report
Improved oversight
The quality assurance system and records had improved since the previous inspection. The manager checked medicines, care plans, accidents, safety and equipment.
“At this inspection we found records much improved: they were maintained up to date and completed appropriately.” from the report
Limited scope for mobility changes
minorThe building could not easily be adapted if someone's mobility needs changed. Moving someone to a room nearer communal areas was described as a short-term solution while other accommodation was found.
“The building did not lend itself to major adaption to accommodate changing mobility needs.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative if their mobility changed and they found the stairs difficult?
- 02How would my relative be involved in assessing and deciding whether a new person could move into the home?
- 03What restrictions would apply to my relative's movement, and how would these be reviewed with them?
- 04What recovery and daily living goals would you agree with my relative, and how would progress be recorded?
- 05How would you support my relative if they needed to move to a different placement?
This inspection covered the care home and all five key questions, but did not inspect the supported living or community support services because no one there was receiving regulated personal care. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and personalised care, but weaknesses in staff recruitment and quality checks created safety risks.
The inspection was unannounced on 6 December 2016. Inspectors returned on 8 December to speak with more people. They spoke with six residents, staff and health and social care professionals, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, rotas, incident records and audits.
People were protected from abuse and received kind, respectful care. Their medicines, health needs and activities were generally well managed. Care plans were personalised, and staff supported people to make choices and become more independent.
The home was not consistently safe or well-led. One newer staff member did not have suitable employment references, fire drill attendance was not clearly recorded, and quality checks missed gaps such as unsecured hazardous liquids and missing temperature records. The home breached two regulations, so the overall rating was Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff were caring, kind and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people’s needs, preferences, routines and goals. People were involved in developing and reviewing their plans.
“People had detailed care plans, risk assessments and guidance in place to help staff to support them in an individual way.” from the report
Health and medicines
People generally received medicines safely and were supported to attend health appointments. Their health needs were kept under review.
“People received their medicines safely and when they needed them.” from the report
Choice and independence
People could choose activities, meals and drinks. Staff helped people build skills for greater independence, including cooking and managing medicines where assessed as safe.
“Staff promoted people's independence and ability to do more for themselves.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousOne of three newer staff files had no employment references. The provider said extra monitoring had been used, but this was not clearly recorded.
“People were placed at risk due to the failure by the provider to obtain appropriate conduct in employment references for new staff.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not always identify missing records or tasks that had not been completed. Inspectors also found hazardous liquids that people could easily reach in a laundry cupboard.
“The failure by the provider to ensure that quality monitoring and audits were carried out robustly by staff to protect the safety and quality of the service delivered is a breach of Regulation 17” from the report
Hazardous liquids accessible
seriousTwo hazardous liquids were found in an easily accessible laundry cupboard. Inspectors said this placed people at risk.
“these were easily accessible to people that use the laundry on a regular basis and this placed them at risk.” from the report
Fire drill records
needs fixingStaff understood the fire procedure, but the home could not show clearly which staff had taken part in drills and walkthroughs.
“the provider and registered manager could not therefore assure themselves that all staff had attended a minimum number of fire drills” from the report
Medicine storage
minorInspectors said medicated creams needed to be stored separately from oral medicines to prevent possible contamination.
“Medicated topical creams needed to be stored away from oral medicines to ensure they did not leach into other medicines; this is an area for improvement.” from the report
- 01Have all staff files now been checked to confirm that suitable employment references were obtained?
- 02How are you recording attendance at fire drills and walkthrough drills now?
- 03How do you check that hazardous cleaning products and other liquids cannot be reached by residents?
- 04How do you make sure fridge and freezer temperature records are completed and checked every day?
- 05Have medicated creams been separated from oral medicines, and how is this checked?
This inspection covered the residential service, but personal care for people in nearby supported living accommodation was not inspected because nobody there was receiving it. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 January 2017 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 Lodge
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 November 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.