CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Corner Lodge Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, detailed risk assessments, trained medicines staff and suitable infection control arrangements. They also found one missing deprivation of liberty application, which was resolved after the inspection, and some medicine recording errors that had been acted on.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear management structure, regular quality checks and positive feedback from people, relatives and staff. The home was making improvements, including introducing a new electronic care plan system.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Corner Lodge Limited is rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 12 and 15 April 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about safeguarding and notifications. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, risk assessments and suitable infection control arrangements. Staff knew people well and were seen to be kind and caring.
There were some shortfalls. One application for a deprivation of liberty safeguard had not been made, although this was resolved the day after the inspection. Some staff files did not contain a full work history, and some medicine recording errors were found and had already been acted on.
The overall Good rating also used ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for the other areas. Caring, Effective and Responsive were not inspected during this visit.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered promptly and staff were calm rather than rushing.
“Our observations on the day of inspection showed us there were enough numbers of staff on duty to meet people's individual needs and keep people safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff who administered medicines had been trained. Medicines were audited, and action was taken when recording errors were found.
“Systems were in place to manage people's medicines safely. Staff were trained in the administration of medicines.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw kind interactions and found that staff knew people well. People and relatives were positive about the service.
“There was a positive atmosphere in the service staff obviously knew people well and we observed kind and caring interactions.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The management team checked care records, medicines, health and safety and infection control. Records showed that improvement actions were followed up.
“A range of quality checks were carried out to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Missing safeguard application
needs fixingInspectors found one case where an application for a deprivation of liberty safeguard had not been made. The provider resolved this the day after the inspection.
“We found one example where a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLs) had not been applied for.” from the report
Incomplete staff records
minorSome personnel files did not contain a full work history. Inspectors recommended that the provider seek guidance and ensure these records are complete.
“However, the full work history of some staff was not present in their personnel files.” from the report
Medicine recording errors
needs fixingInspectors found some errors on a medicine recording sheet. The manager had already taken action, including supervision and further training for staff.
“On the day of inspection, we found some errors on a recording sheet, upon discussion with the registered manager these had already been actioned” from the report
- 01How do you now check that all staff personnel files contain a complete work history?
- 02How do you make sure applications for deprivation of liberty safeguards are made promptly when needed?
- 03What changes were made after the medicine recording errors, and how do you check that records remain accurate?
- 04What is the current position with the new electronic care plan system, and how are staff supported to use it?
- 05What are the current ratings and findings for Caring, Effective and Responsive from the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Caring, Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 June 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 2018
Corner Lodge Limited was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records and support arrangements still needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 November 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, a relative, visitors, managers and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines, training, recruitment and quality checks. The home could support up to 48 people and 42 people were living there at the time.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments, trained staff and good access to healthcare. People were treated with dignity and respect, and their care plans and activities generally reflected their wishes.
The report also records some areas needing attention. Lunchtime support was not always organised well, some care plans lacked important detail, and end of life documents and do-not-attempt-resuscitation forms were not always easy to find. The manager said these issues would be addressed.
The previous inspection in August 2016 rated the home Requires Improvement and found breaches in Regulations 9, 12 and 17. This inspection found that the required improvements had been made and all five ratings had improved to Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated as individuals, and staff spent time talking with them, protecting their dignity and supporting their choices.
“Staff were compassionate, attentive and caring in their interactions with people.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered a broad programme of activities and also arranged individual experiences linked to people's interests and wishes.
“People were supported to follow their dreams and activities were provided to suit people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were administered safely by trained staff, and inspectors found enough staff overall to meet people's needs.
“Medicines were stored safely and administered at the correct times by staff who were trained and competent.” from the report
Support at lunchtime
needs fixingOn one floor, no staff member had been allocated to watch for people needing help with eating and drinking. The manager said this would be addressed.
“This was because no staff member was delegated to observe and prompt people to eat or to provide assistance as needed.” from the report
Some care plans lacked detail
needs fixingPlans did not always explain clearly how staff should respond to anxiety or low blood sugar. The manager said this would be improved.
“For example, where one person could become anxious, there was limited detail provided regarding the strategies, which could be used to try to prevent this from occurring.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingSome preferred priorities of care documents had not been completed. The home was developing this area and had contacted families for their views.
“The plans for end of life care required further development.” from the report
Do-not-attempt-resuscitation forms
needs fixingThese forms were not always easy to find in care plans, which could make it harder for staff to know about them during an emergency.
“DNAR (Do not attempt resuscitation) forms were not always easily accessible within the care plans.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure a staff member is available to support people who need help eating or drinking at lunchtime?
- 02Have the protocols for as-needed medicines been updated to include people's possible triggers and non-medicine ways to reduce anxiety?
- 03How do care plans now explain what staff should do if someone becomes anxious or has low blood sugar?
- 04Have all residents' end of life wishes been recorded, and how are do-not-attempt-resuscitation forms made easy for staff to find?
- 05How do your audits now record learning from incidents and show the effect of changes on residents?
This was an unannounced inspection of the home, including the premises and care provided, and it assessed all five CQC questions; the previous inspection had rated all five areas Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 January 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 Corner Lodge Limited
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 March 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.