CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Chippendayle Lodge Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment, medicines checks and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported with their health needs, communication, relationships and end of life wishes. Activities had reduced and there was mixed feedback about how people spent their time.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as visible and approachable. Audits and checks were in place, although the deputy manager had left and staff meetings had not taken place in 2021.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and strong management, but activities had reduced.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 22 and 23 April 2021. It followed concerns about staffing, getting medical help and how the home was managed. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concerns that led to the inspection.
The inspection did not cover Effective or Caring. The previous ratings for these areas were carried forward from the last comprehensive inspection. The overall Good rating therefore includes findings from this focused inspection and earlier inspection work.
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, important relationships, interests and religious needs. Staff were said to know people as individuals.
“Staff knew people's interests, preferences and religious needs so they could support people in a personalised way.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and comprehensive checks on new staff.
“Checks on new staff were comprehensive.” from the report
Medicines management
Medicines were stored, administered and audited safely. Records included guidance for medicines taken when needed and checks on medicine temperatures.
“Regular auditing of medicine procedures had taken place, including checks on accurately recording administered medicines” from the report
Approachable leadership
The manager was visible and approachable, and people, relatives and staff felt involved in the service.
“Everyone told us the registered manager was a visible presence at the service and that they were approachable.” from the report
Working with health professionals
The home worked with GPs and other health professionals, including falls, mental health, district nursing and therapy teams.
“A good working relationship had been established with GP's who held weekly consultations at the service.” from the report
Reduced activities
minorActivities had reduced because of the pandemic and because the part-time activity coordinator was no longer employed. Relatives gave mixed feedback, including concern about the lack of a structured programme.
“There had been significant change in activities available due to the pandemic and the part-time activity coordinator no longer being employed at the service.” from the report
Fewer formal meetings
minorThe frequency of meetings about the service had diminished, and staff meetings had not taken place in 2021. Staff still reported clear communication and support.
“Staff meetings had not taken place in 2021.” from the report
Extra management responsibilities
minorThe deputy manager had left before the inspection. The registered manager had taken on those responsibilities while deciding which tasks could be given to senior staff.
“The deputy manager had left the service prior to the inspection.” from the report
- 01What structured activities are now available, and who is responsible for providing them?
- 02Has an activity coordinator been appointed since this inspection?
- 03How are the registered manager's additional responsibilities covered after the deputy manager left?
- 04How often are staff meetings and meetings with residents and relatives now held?
- 05How will you respond if my relative becomes unwell or needs urgent medical help?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 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, February 2018
Chippendayle Lodge Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some delays in call-bell responses and mealtimes to monitor.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 and 29 January 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, and had care planned around their needs and choices.
Inspectors found some people experienced waits for call bells, although bells were answered promptly during the inspection. They also found a 30-minute wait for lunch on the first day and inconsistent accident records. The manager took action during or after the inspection to address these points.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were friendly and caring. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy, ask permission and offer reassurance when people were upset.
“Staff were observed responding to people's emotional needs when people were distressed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, communication needs, abilities and the support they required. People and relatives were involved in planning care.
“People could be assured that they would be offered person-centred care, which put themselves and their wishes at the centre of everything they needed care and support with.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored, administered and audited safely. Staff checked whether people wanted their medicines and recorded when they had been taken.
“People continued to receive their medicines safely by staff that were trained and followed the providers' policy and procedure.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People were offered activities linked to their interests and could help shape the service through meetings and surveys. Feedback had led to a new sundry shop.
“Following feedback from the October 2017 survey the sundry shop was created.” from the report
Good management oversight
The management team used audits, staff meetings and feedback to check quality and plan improvements. The home worked with health care professionals to support people's health.
“Systems continued to be in place to monitor the quality of the service that was being provided to people.” from the report
Staffing at mealtimes
minorThe manager had identified that an extra staff member was needed at mealtimes and was recruiting a dining room assistant. Staff were seen to be busy and task-focused.
“The registered manager had assessed people's needs and records showed a consistent number of staff were on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Accident and incident records
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, records were not completed consistently for different people. The manager introduced a checklist by the second day.
“On the first day of our inspection records showed there was inconsistent recording of accidents and incidents.” from the report
Waiting for lunch
minorPeople waited around 30 minutes for lunch on the first day. The manager used hot food bags to reduce waiting and planned to monitor whether another hot food trolley was needed.
“Observations of the lunch service on the first day showed people were waiting for 30 minutes before their lunch arrived.” from the report
Manual handling training
needs fixingSome new staff were waiting for practical manual handling training and could not carry out manual handling until it was completed. Training had been arranged for February 2018.
“Some new staff were awaiting practical manual handling training, until this had been completed the new staff were not able to undertake any manual handling.” from the report
- 01How long do people usually wait for call bells to be answered, especially at busy times?
- 02Has the additional dining room assistant been recruited, and how has this changed mealtime staffing?
- 03What was the outcome of the new checklist for recording accidents and incidents?
- 04Have all new staff completed their practical manual handling training?
- 05What changes were made to reduce waiting times for meals?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, interviews and checks of care, medicines, staffing and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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.
Every inspection of Chippendayle Lodge Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Chippendayle Lodge Residential Care Home →
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Chippendayle Lodge Residential Care Home →
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
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.