CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cameron Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care and improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced planned inspection by one inspector on 4 July 2019. The inspector spoke with six people, staff and healthcare professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The inspectors found that people were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's needs, supported their independence and choices, managed medicines safely, and responded to changes in health. There were enough staff, and the home was clean.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement, with two breaches. The inspectors found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and friendly. Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Safe medicines support
People received medicines when they needed them. Records were accurate, staff were trained and their ability to give medicines was checked.
“People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who had been trained and competency checked.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was based on people's needs, choices, interests and communication preferences. People were supported to take part in activities and live as independently as possible.
“People received a service that met individual needs and helped them to achieve their goals and ambitions.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its audits and action plans. The previous breaches relating to safe care and treatment and governance had been resolved.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure medicines remain safe during the change from the pre-prepared measured dose system to conventional blister packs?
- 02How often are each person's risk assessments and care plans reviewed, and how are changes in health recorded?
- 03What specialist training do staff have for needs such as epilepsy, catheter care, choking risks and behaviours that challenge?
- 04How do you make sure people can choose their activities, food and daily routines, including when they need one-to-one support?
- 05What action has been taken in response to feedback from people, relatives and staff since the inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions and the care provided to people receiving personal care; seven of the ten people using the service received personal care. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 August 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.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but serious environmental safety and governance problems remained.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 May 2018. Inspectors reviewed care, risk and medicines records, staff records and meeting notes. They observed care and spoke with people, the manager and staff.
The care was rated Good in Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported to make choices, stay healthy, communicate in ways they understood, build independence and take part in activities they enjoyed.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Broken and uneven paths and the forecourt created a risk of falls. A broken washing machine meant soiled laundry was moved between buildings, raising infection risks. The provider had known about these problems but had not fixed them.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement, for the second consecutive inspection. Some improvements had been made since December 2016, especially in person-centred support and staff practice, but two legal breaches remained.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, patience and respect. Staff knew people's backgrounds, preferences and support needs.
“Staff were kind, caring and patient. They knew people well and had built strong relationships.” from the report
Good communication
Staff used pictures, gestures and other forms of communication to help people express themselves and understand information.
“Some people had complex communication needs and were not able to express themselves verbally.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely and given by trained staff. Records and guidance for medicines given when needed were in place.
“People received their medicines safely and on time.” from the report
Unsafe paths and forecourt
seriousBroken tarmac and uneven paths created a risk of falls, particularly for people walking or using wheelchairs. Staff and managers had repeatedly raised these concerns, but the provider had not repaired them.
“The forecourt had large pieces of tarmac missing and pieces were loose.” from the report
Laundry and infection risk
seriousThe house washing machine had not worked since January 2018. Soiled laundry was taken to another building, which increased the risk of infection and reduced people's independence.
“Currently, soiled washing was being taken by staff to one of the bungalows to be washed.” from the report
Provider did not act on known risks
seriousThe provider had been told about environmental problems since 2015 but had not put the planned improvements into action. The forecourt work still had no start date at the time of the report.
“The provider had not acted to resolve the environmental issues.” from the report
- 01Has the forecourt been repaired so that the missing and loose tarmac is no longer a risk?
- 02When was the washing machine in the house replaced, and can residents now do their own laundry there?
- 03What has been done to remove urine smells and repair cracks, water marks and other problems in bedrooms and communal areas?
- 04How does the provider now make sure concerns reported by staff and managers are acted on promptly?
- 05What improvements have been completed since the inspection, and what work is still waiting to start?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including six people's care and support records, medicines, staffing, the environment and observed care. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 July 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 Cameron Lodge
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
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.