CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chase Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe environmental risks and a breach of Regulation 12, although care was effective in several important areas.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 22 September 2022. Inspectors checked Safe, Effective and Well-led, including the home’s infection control arrangements. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. The rear garden contained hazards, some bedroom radiators were uncovered, and worn carpet created a trip risk. These risks had been identified but were not dealt with quickly enough. The home acted promptly during and after the inspection, including removing garden hazards, making the carpet safer and ordering radiator covers.
Inspectors rated Effective as Good. People had suitable support from trained staff, could make everyday choices, received healthcare support and were supported with food, medicines and their legal rights. Safe and Well-led remained Requires Improvement because environmental risks and quality checks were not managed effectively enough.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The home had also been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, and the provider remained in breach of regulations. CQC said it would meet the provider and work with the local authority to monitor progress.
Staffing and recruitment
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks had improved since the previous inspection.
“Systems and processes in place supported the recruitment of staff who had been appropriately assessed as safe to work with vulnerable adults.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors found medicines were given safely and as prescribed, with no errors or unexplained gaps in the records checked.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Person-centred care
Staff knew people well, supported their individual needs and helped them access specialist health and social care.
“People received consistent care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Environmental safety
seriousThe rear garden contained tools and other hazards, some bedroom radiators were uncovered, and worn carpet created a trip risk. The risks had not been fully assessed or dealt with promptly.
“Environmental risks were not always fully assessed with timely action taken to reduce risk.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingAudits and risk assessments identified some problems but did not ensure they were resolved in good time. CQC recommended a review of the auditing process.
“Leaders did not always ensure systems and processes in place were operated effectively to identify and resolve issues within the service.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make the rear garden safe, and can people now use it safely?
- 02Have all bedroom radiators been covered or replaced with safer radiators?
- 03Has the worn carpet been replaced, and how are trip hazards now checked?
- 04How has the provider changed its audits so that safety problems are found and fixed promptly?
- 05What action plan is in place to address the Regulation 12 breach, and how will families be told about progress?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 2023 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, October 2020
Rated Requires Improvement, improved from Inadequate and no longer in Special Measures; inspectors found kind, personalised care but unsafe recruitment checks.
This was a focused follow-up inspection on 3 and 4 September 2020. Inspectors spoke with six people and five staff, reviewed five care records, medicines records, four staff files and management records. They also checked infection control arrangements for COVID-19.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. It was clean and fresher, most areas had been refurbished, care plans were detailed, medicines were generally managed safely and people had more activities and choice. People spoke positively about the staff and manager.
There was still a serious shortfall in recruitment checks. References, name changes and gaps in employment history were not always properly checked. The home also did not have a system for checking hot water temperatures, although this was acted on during the inspection.
The overall rating changed from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement, while Responsive was Good. Effective and Caring were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. The home was no longer in Special Measures.
Improved environment
Most areas and people's rooms had been refurbished. Inspectors found the home clean and fresh, with repaired bathrooms and better-maintained spaces.
“The service was visibly clean and smelt fresh throughout.” from the report
Personalised care
People helped shape their care plans and room decoration. Records described their needs, communication preferences, interests and personal choices in detail.
“People had been involved in the development of their care records.” from the report
Activities and freedom
People had more activities during COVID-19 restrictions and were supported to use the community safely. They could choose where to spend time outdoors.
“People living at the service were supported to access the community safely.” from the report
Medicines and incident management
Medicines were stored and disposed of safely, and staff administered them in pairs. Accidents and incidents were reviewed for patterns and actions were taken to reduce repeat events.
“Accidents and incidents were reported, recorded and actions taken to reduce potential reoccurrence.” from the report
Improved leadership
The manager had introduced quality checks, regular staff supervision and systems to review care records and training. Staff morale and feedback about the management had improved.
“The registered manager had demonstrated their ability to identify and drive forward improvements.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome new staff did not have the required references or fully completed employment histories. This meant the provider could not be fully assured about their suitability and was a breach of Regulation 19.
“We found shortfalls in safe recruitment of staff; this was a breach of regulation.” from the report
Hot water monitoring
needs fixingThere was no system to check hot water temperatures in people's bedrooms, which could increase the risk of scalds. The manager said immediate action would be taken.
“There was no system in place to check hot water temperatures in people's bedrooms to reduce the risk of scalds.” from the report
One unclear medicines record
needs fixingOne medicines administration record combined the regular and as-required doses, so the correct dose was unclear. The manager contacted the GP immediately.
“We identified one MAR which did not give clear instructions about the correct dose” from the report
- 01How do you now check references, name changes and gaps in employment history before new staff start?
- 02How often are hot water temperatures checked in residents' bedrooms, and where are the results recorded?
- 03What action was taken after the unclear medicines administration record, and how are dose instructions checked now?
- 04What are the current ratings and findings for Effective and Caring, which were not assessed in this inspection?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan for the Regulation 19 recruitment breach?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led, with infection control also checked; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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 Chase Lodge Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North 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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.