CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Court Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and risks were assessed and managed. Medicines were given by trained staff and records showed they had been given as prescribed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable food and drinks, staff had regular training and supervision, and people were supported to access health professionals. Staff sought consent and followed legal requirements about decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind, compassionate and respectful. People were involved in planning their care and were supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and reviewed regularly. People had personalised care, activities suited to different needs and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management. Audits and meetings were used to monitor care, safety and improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Court Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some staff concerns about morning staffing levels.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 24 and 26 October 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs.
Inspectors found safe medicines practices, suitable training, detailed care plans, varied activities and systems for checking the quality of care. Some staff said there was pressure downstairs in the morning, especially when agency staff were working, but the home was recruiting and using agency staff to cover shifts.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that trained staff gave medicines safely. Records showed medicines had been given as prescribed and stock checks matched the records.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's individual preferences and supported privacy during personal care.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. People's privacy was respected at all times.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included detailed information about people's physical and mental health needs, routines and preferences. They were reviewed monthly or sooner when needed.
“Care plans were comprehensive and detailed, including physical health needs and people's mental health needs.” from the report
Complaints handled
The complaints process was displayed and records showed complaints were investigated and dealt with promptly.
“Records showed complaints had been dealt with promptly and investigated in accordance with the provider's policy.” from the report
Pressure during morning care
needs fixingSome staff felt more staff were needed downstairs in the morning. They said people could sometimes be rushed, particularly when agency staff were working, although the home was taking steps to recruit and adjust staffing.
“However some staff expressed a view more staff were needed downstairs in the morning.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care staff are currently working downstairs in the morning?
- 02What has changed since the inspection to reduce the risk of people being rushed during morning care?
- 03How often are agency staff used, and how are they introduced to people's individual needs?
- 04How does the monthly Resident of the day review work in practice, and can relatives be involved?
- 05Which Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications are still waiting to be assessed, and how are people's rights protected while they wait?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality and safety of the home, covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 December 2017 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 Court Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2017Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 February 2016.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.