CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Charles Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. They found suitable arrangements for visitors, testing, isolation, protective equipment and cleaning.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Charles Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and safe arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors visited the home on 17 February 2021. The visit was announced and targeted. It looked only at infection prevention and control arrangements in response to coronavirus outbreaks.
Inspectors found suitable measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19. These included visitor controls, testing, self-isolation, vaccination, correct use of protective equipment, enhanced cleaning and updated infection control policies.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall rating or a full assessment of all five areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to arrange visits in advance, take a test when needed, clean their hands and wear protective equipment. The home also enabled end-of-life visits and alternative contact with relatives.
“The registered manager gave us examples of how the service had ensured a person receiving end of life care had been able to have face-to-face visits with their next of kin during the last days of their life.” from the report
Testing and isolation
New admissions and people returning from hospital were tested and isolated. Residents and staff with COVID-19 symptoms or positive tests were also required to isolate.
“There were suitable arrangements in place to ensure any new admissions to the care home or people returning after an overnight stay in hospital for example, were tested for COVID-19 before being allowed to enter the building and then self-isolate in their bedroom for at least 10 days.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw staff wearing protective equipment correctly. Staff had updated infection control training and the home had adequate supplies.
“All the managers and staff we observed during our inspection were wearing their PPE correctly.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current arrangement for visiting relatives, including visits for people receiving end-of-life care?
- 02How are new residents and people returning from hospital tested and supported during any required isolation?
- 03How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned now, and how is this checked?
- 04What infection control training have staff completed since this inspection?
- 05What is the home's latest full CQC rating for caring, effective care, responsiveness and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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, January 2019
Charles Lodge was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home still needed to improve mental capacity assessments.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 December 2018. One inspector and an expert-by-experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care, mealtimes and medicines, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines practice, good infection control, kind staff and personalised care. People were supported to eat and drink, stay active and maintain contact with others.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. The home had improved since the previous inspection, but mental capacity assessments were not completed consistently for every care decision. In particular, some relatives had been asked to consent to flu vaccinations without the home first checking whether the person could make that decision or whether the relative had legal authority.
At the previous focused inspection in October 2017, the home was rated Requires Improvement and breached Regulation 11. At this inspection, it was no longer in breach, but inspectors said the improvements still needed to become consistent in everyday practice.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff and improved systems for identifying and reducing risks, including falls. Accidents were analysed and care plans were updated when people's needs changed.
“Accidents and incidents that had occurred had been recorded, monitored and analysed to identify trends.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and responded patiently to anxiety and confusion. People's privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
“People were treated with dignity and their privacy was maintained.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
People and relatives helped plan and review care. The home offered group activities, one-to-one interaction and support for people to keep using their skills.
“People received personalised and responsive care.” from the report
Good management oversight
Managers used audits, meetings and feedback to identify and act on improvements. The home also worked with outside health professionals and other homes in the group.
“Quality assurance processes ensured a good oversight of systems and processes.” from the report
Consent and mental capacity checks
needs fixingThe home did not always assess whether people could make particular care decisions before seeking consent. Some relatives were asked to consent to flu injections even though they might not have had legal authority to make that healthcare decision alone.
“Further improvement however, was needed to ensure that this process was followed for all decisions relating to people's care.” from the report
- 01How do you now assess a person's capacity before asking for consent to vaccinations or other healthcare decisions?
- 02How do you check whether a relative has legal authority to make a healthcare decision on someone's behalf?
- 03What checks make sure mental capacity assessments are completed for every relevant care decision?
- 04How are falls risks, accidents and changes in care needs recorded and reviewed now?
- 05How will you involve residents and relatives in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including follow-up of risks and legal requirements identified at the October 2017 focused inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 January 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.
Every inspection of Charles Lodge
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.