CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Courtland Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak, with face-to-face visits restricted.
The CQC made an unannounced, targeted inspection on 1 February 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found robust arrangements for visitors, including screening, temperature checks, protective equipment and checks of vaccination status where applicable. The home was clean, and staff were following protective equipment guidance.
People had individual COVID-19 risk assessments. The home used isolation, grouping and zoning, and senior staff carried out daily checks and infection control audits. The service was meeting the COVID-19 vaccination requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a new overall quality rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened and given guidance and protective equipment. The home also checked temperatures and vaccination status where applicable.
“Visitors were being received at the service with robust infection control procedures in place.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had cleaning routines throughout the day and used isolation, grouping and zoning to manage infection risks.
“The service was clean and hygienic. Robust cleaning regimes were in place, which were methodically completed throughout the day.” from the report
Staff protective measures
Protective equipment was available throughout the building, with instructions displayed. Inspectors saw staff following the guidance.
“Staff were seen to be adhering to the PPE guidance and protective measures in place.” from the report
Individual risk assessments
Each person had an assessment considering factors that could put them at greater risk from COVID-19, with guidance for staff.
“Each person had a personalised risk assessment in place which considering all factors that may make them at disproportionate risk from COVID-19.” from the report
Regular checks
Senior staff carried out daily building checks and regular infection control audits. Inspectors said issues were dealt with promptly.
“Action was promptly taken to address any issues identified.” from the report
Restricted face-to-face visits
minorBecause of the COVID-19 outbreak, face-to-face visits were limited to essential care givers and people at the end of their lives. Screened visits were available in a visitor pod.
“Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 at the service, face to face visits had been restricted to Essential Care Givers and for those people at the end of their lives only.” from the report
- 01What visiting arrangements are in place now, and are visits still affected by any outbreak controls?
- 02How would you support my relative to keep in contact with family and friends if face-to-face visits were restricted?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and what effect could these have on my relative's care?
- 04How will my relative's individual infection risks be assessed and explained to staff?
- 05How do you check that staff and visiting professionals meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirements or have an exemption?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 2022 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, April 2019
Courtland Lodge rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with one medicines recording error that had been addressed.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, observed care, reviewed three care plans and checked records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff were kind, people's choices and dignity were respected, and care was personalised.
There was one medicines recording problem. A pain-relief medicine given only when needed had not been carried across correctly to a new medicines record, and two tablets could not be accounted for. The manager introduced a new daily checking process.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw caring interactions and found that staff knew people well. People and relatives said staff were kind and reassuring.
“Staff were kind and caring and had developed good relationships with people who lived there.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“Care and support were delivered in a personalised way by staff who knew people and their preferences.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could take part in group activities or continue with hobbies and interests. There were different spaces for people to spend time alone or with others.
“There were a range of activities going on daily for people to enjoy.” from the report
Food and hydration support
People were offered choices at meals, including support for dietary, cultural and medical needs. Snacks and drinks were available, and food and fluid intake was monitored where needed.
“Choices were available at each meal and menus included pictures to support people with making choices.” from the report
Visible management
Staff, people and relatives described the manager as supportive and approachable. The home used audits, meetings and reviews of incidents to improve care.
“Staff felt listened to and told us the manager's door was always open if they needed support.” from the report
Medicines record
needs fixingOne person's as-needed pain-relief medicine was not recorded correctly when the medicines record changed. Two tablets were unaccounted for, although a new checking process had been introduced and was being monitored daily.
“The medicine had not been documented from the previous medicine administration record (MAR) to the new MAR sheet and two tablets were unaccounted for.” from the report
- 01How is the new daily checking process for as-needed medicines working, and what happens if a tablet cannot be accounted for?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's risk assessments and care plans are updated when their needs change?
- 03Which activities and quiet spaces would be suitable for my relative's interests and communication needs?
- 04How will my relative's food, drink and any special dietary needs be monitored?
- 05How are relatives involved in decisions about care, including end of life wishes if needed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, premises and management of the home, covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good in July 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 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 Courtland Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.