CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Clifton Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but gaps in risk management, medicines, care planning and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 9 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care files, medicines records, staff files, training, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The home was caring, and people and relatives spoke positively about the staff. There were enough staff during the inspection, staff were recruited safely, people had access to healthcare, and the home was clean. However, inspectors found unsafe manual handling, incomplete medicines records, gaps in risk assessments, and inconsistent use of the Mental Capacity Act.
Care plans did not fully explain people's mental health, dementia or end of life needs. Quality checks had not found these problems. The overall rating and the ratings for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. This was the home's first inspection since it was newly registered.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. Inspectors saw a good rapport between staff and people, apart from the dining experience on the first day.
“People were supported and cared for by a consistent team of staff.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs during the inspection. Recruitment checks were in place, and newly employed staff received an induction.
“The deployment of staff was appropriate during both days of inspection and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home worked with other organisations and people could access healthcare services when needed. Relatives said they were kept informed about appointments and health outcomes.
“The service worked with other organisations to ensure they delivered joined-up care and support” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and odour free. Staff generally followed infection control procedures and had protective equipment available.
“Staff had access to personal protective equipment to help prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in group and one-to-one activities. Relatives and friends could visit without restrictions.
“People were supported during both days of inspection to participate in a variety of activities” from the report
Unsafe moving and handling
seriousInspectors saw staff use unsafe techniques when moving one person. Another person used a wheelchair without footplates, creating a potential risk of harm.
“Both techniques are unsafe, can hurt and cause injury.” from the report
Medicines records and procedures
seriousMedication administration records had gaps and discrepancies. Records for topical creams and as-required medicines were also not consistently completed.
“Medication practices and procedures were not always followed.” from the report
Risk assessments
seriousNot all risks were identified, and assessments did not clearly explain the actions needed to keep people safe. One person's risk of eating harmful non-food items had no staff guidance.
“Not all risks for people were identified.” from the report
Mental capacity decisions
seriousThe home did not consistently assess whether people could make specific decisions or record best interest decisions. This included some restrictions and covert medication arrangements.
“The service did not consistently apply the principles of the MCA as people's ability to make a specific decision had not always been assessed and best interest assessments completed.” from the report
Care and end of life records
needs fixingCare plans lacked detail about mental health, dementia and behaviours. An end of life care plan was missing for one person, including information about wishes, treatment and pain management.
“No end of life care plan was in place to identify if the person or those acting on their behalf had expressed a wish to be cared for at the service or to go to hospital.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits and quality systems did not identify the problems found during the inspection. This led to a breach of the good governance regulation.
“These systems did not identify issues found during our inspection.” from the report
- 01What has changed in moving and handling practice since inspectors saw unsafe transfers, and how is this checked?
- 02How do you now make sure every medicine dose, cream application and as-required medicine is recorded correctly?
- 03How are risks such as eating non-food items identified, assessed and explained to staff?
- 04How are people's mental health needs, distress triggers and support strategies recorded and reviewed?
- 05How do you record and discuss end of life wishes, treatment choices, pain relief and symptom management?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; it was the home's first inspection since it was newly registered. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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 Clifton Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 March 2017.
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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.