CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cosy Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and reviewed, including risks linked to diabetes, choking, seizures and community activities. Staff were trained to protect people from abuse, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff received training suited to those needs. People were supported with food, healthcare, communication, decision-making and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind and respectful interactions. People and relatives were involved in care decisions, and staff supported privacy, dignity, relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's choices, preferences and needs. People had accessible communication tools, opportunities for activities and community trips, and relatives said concerns were investigated and resolved.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff were described as approachable and supportive. Quality checks covered areas such as care plans, medicines and health and safety, although one important event was reported to CQC late.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one missed notification and some end-of-life plans still being developed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 August 2019. One inspector spoke with one person, two care staff, a senior carer deputy and the registered manager. Two relatives were also contacted by telephone. The inspector reviewed care, medicine, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with respect, supported to make choices and helped to build independence. Staff understood people's needs and supported activities, healthcare, communication and relationships.
People appeared comfortable and at ease with staff. The home was clean, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. The report also records that one important event had not initially been reported to CQC, although this was corrected, and end-of-life plans were still being developed.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Relatives and staff spoke positively about the care and the manager.
“People benefitted from caring, dedicated staff who treated people with respect and dignity.” from the report
Safety and medicines
The home assessed health and environmental risks, had guidance for complex conditions and checked that medicines were given safely.
“Risks to people's health, safety and well-being and any environmental risks were assessed, and measures put in place to remove or reduce the risks.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities at the home and in the community. Staff supported contact with relatives and helped prevent social isolation.
“People had access a range of activities both in the service and the wider community to prevent isolation and support people to live an active and interesting life.” from the report
Accessible communication
The home used pictures, easy-read documents, communication passports and electronic devices to help people express themselves and make decisions.
“People had communication passports in pictorial formats which explained how people communicated when they were experiencing different feelings like happy, sad, angry, bored and hungry.” from the report
One late notification
minorThe manager had not initially told CQC about one important event. This was described as an oversight and was reported retrospectively after the inspection.
“The registered manager had notified CQC about all but one important event that had occurred.” from the report
End-of-life plans still developing
minorNo one was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection. Plans recorded some people's wishes but were still being developed so that everyone's wishes were documented.
“These were being further developed make sure all people's wishes were documented.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every important event is reported to CQC on time?
- 02How will you record and regularly review my relative's end-of-life wishes?
- 03How would you support my relative's specific health risks, such as diabetes, choking or seizures?
- 04What communication methods would you use if my relative could not express their views verbally?
- 05How would you help my relative choose activities and become more independent?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Cosy Lodge was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but some opened creams and liquid medicines were not dated.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 15 November 2016. One inspector and an expert-by-experience visited, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said people felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, safe medicines practice and good access to healthcare.
The home supported people to make choices, build independence and follow their interests. Care plans included people's routines and preferences. One medicines issue was found: some opened creams and liquid medicines had not always been dated. The manager said this would be corrected.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, manage risks and respond to incidents.
“People told us that they felt safe when they received support from staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff were kind and compassionate. They protected people's privacy and dignity and knew how people preferred to communicate.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion from staff. Their privacy and dignity was respected.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped plan and review their support. Care plans recorded individual routines, preferences and goals, and staff supported people to build independence.
“People's care plans were centred on them as individuals and contained information about their likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Activities and independence
People took part in hobbies and household tasks they enjoyed. They were supported to develop practical skills and take responsibility in the home.
“People were supported to follow their interests and hobbies.” from the report
Good management checks
The manager used meetings, surveys, regular audits and action plans to gather feedback and monitor the service.
“There were systems in place to regularly monitor the quality and safety of the service being provided.” from the report
Opened medicines were not always dated
needs fixingSome creams and liquid medicines had not been dated when opened. This could make it harder to check how long they had been open. The manager said this would be addressed.
“We found that these had not always been dated when they had been opened.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure all opened creams and liquid medicines are dated?
- 02How will you support my relative's preferred communication methods and daily routines?
- 03How will my relative be involved in planning and reviewing their care plan?
- 04What activities and household responsibilities could my relative take part in to build independence?
- 05How would you support my relative during an emergency or hospital visit?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 December 2016 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 Cosy Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
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.