CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cranswick Lodge
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risks, fire safety and medicines management had improved. However, staffing still needed to improve, and some areas were untidy or not maintained to a satisfactory standard.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had received relevant training and felt better supported. Mealtimes had improved, and people's dietary needs and choices were better recognised.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were supported by kind, calm and attentive staff. People and relatives said staff respected privacy and that the service had improved.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans were person-centred, but staff did not always recognise or respond to personal care needs. More activities and support for activities were still needed.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The new manager had introduced improvements and staff felt more supported. However, some governance actions had been signed off before they were fully completed, and partnership working needed to improve.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Southlands was rated Requires Improvement; improvements mean it is no longer in Special Measures, but staffing, activities and oversight still need work.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous Inadequate rating. Two inspectors visited, an expert by experience spoke to relatives, and the inspectors spoke with people, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The inspectors found important improvements. Risks were recorded more clearly, fire checks had improved, medicines were managed safely, and staff training and support had improved. People were supported by kind staff, and mealtimes were more flexible. The effective and caring questions were rated Good.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Staffing still needed to improve, some areas were untidy or difficult to clean, activities were not yet sufficient for everyone, and some quality checks were signed off before all actions were fully completed. The home was no longer rated Inadequate or in Special Measures.
Improved safety systems
Risks to people's health were identified and recorded more clearly. Fire safety checks and staff training had also improved.
“Fire safety had improved. All staff had up to date training and had attended a recent fire drill.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found staff to be kind, calm and attentive. People said their privacy and preferences were respected.
“Staff were kind, calm and attentive to people's emotions and support needs.” from the report
Better training and mealtimes
Staff had received more relevant training and support. Meals were more flexible, with more choice and better attention to dietary needs.
“People now received meals at times appropriate to the day and their needs.” from the report
Positive changes under new management
The new manager had introduced new systems and staff said communication and organisation had improved.
“The service is more organised, and communication is so much better.” from the report
Staffing still stretched
needs fixingStaffing had improved, but people, relatives and staff still felt more staff were needed. Domestic staffing also needed improvement.
“Staffing has improved, but we still need more to be able to spend more time chatting to people” from the report
Cleanliness and upkeep
needs fixingSome areas were untidy and not maintained to a satisfactory standard. Carpets and flooring needed replacing to make cleaning more effective.
“Due to the lack of domestic staff some areas of the service were untidy and not maintained to a satisfactory standard.” from the report
Activities not yet sufficient
minorSome people had taken part in activities, but the manager recognised that more support and activities were needed.
“A newly appointed activities co-ordinator was working with people and their relatives to identify activities they would like to complete.” from the report
Quality checks needed closer follow-through
needs fixingThe provider had monitoring systems, but some actions were signed off before they were fully completed.
“Where actions had been identified they had not always been completed in full before been signed off as completed.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now on duty at weekends and during busy periods, and has domestic staffing increased?
- 02What activities are now available for people who live here, including people with dementia or limited mobility?
- 03Which carpets and floors have been replaced, and how do you check that all areas are now clean and well maintained?
- 04How do you make sure improvement actions are completed before they are signed off?
- 05Has the new manager registered with CQC, and who is responsible for the home until that happens?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, with infection prevention and control also checked; the report compares the findings with the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 February 2023 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, November 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, staffing, medicines and management failures.
Inspectors visited on 9, 16 and 22 August 2022 without giving notice. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, training and audits.
They found people were at risk because medicines were not always given safely, risks were not kept up to date, fire safety processes were not followed and there were not always enough trained staff. Some areas were dirty and infection control was not always effective.
People's food, skin care, healthcare and activity needs were not always met. Some legal safeguards for people deprived of their liberty had expired or were not followed. Relatives described staff as kind, but inspectors saw missed chances to spend time with people.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Inadequate. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Requires Improvement. The home was placed in special measures and CQC said it would monitor progress and normally re-inspect within six months.
Kind staff
Relatives spoke positively about staff, who were described as kind and caring. Staff also said they wanted the best for the people living in the home.
“Although relatives spoke fondly of staff, we found low staffing levels sometimes impacted on the quality of care and interactions.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff had safeguarding training and understood the signs of abuse and what to do if they had concerns.
“Staff were trained in safeguarding and understood the signs and types of abuse and action to take if there were concerns.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives were usually involved in care decisions, and people were supported to keep in touch with family and friends.
“People were supported to maintain their relationships with families and friends through visits and phone calls.” from the report
Complaints process
The home had processes for people and relatives to raise concerns, and inspectors found complaints were handled according to its policy.
“Complaints were addressed in line with the providers policy and procedure.” from the report
Medicines were unsafe
seriousPeople did not always receive medicines as prescribed. Creams were not consistently applied and individual risk assessments were missing for potentially flammable creams.
“People's medicines were not managed safely. The provider had submitted multiple safeguarding referrals due to shortfalls in the safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Risks and fire safety
seriousRisk assessments were not kept accurate or up to date. Staff had not completed fire awareness training or regular fire drills.
“Fire safety risks had not been appropriately mitigated. Staff had not completed fire awareness training or regular fire drills to enable them to maintain people's safety in the event of a fire.” from the report
Not enough trained staff
seriousThe provider had not ensured enough skilled staff were on shift. Staff and relatives said staffing was too low, and training and competency checks were incomplete.
“The provider had not ensured there were appropriate numbers of trained and skilled staff on shift.” from the report
Food and healthcare needs
seriousSome people waited until nearly lunchtime for breakfast, did not always have meal choices and were not weighed as planned. Healthcare referrals were sometimes delayed.
“People did not always receive appropriate support to meet their nutritional needs.” from the report
Rights were not protected
seriousSome Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations had expired before new applications were made. Conditions were not always recorded or followed.
“This meant some people were deprived of their liberty without the lawful authorisations being in place.” from the report
Few activities
needs fixingThere were no activity staff and no activities taking place during the inspection. Inspectors said people were at risk of social isolation.
“At the time of the inspection, there were no activity staff employed and no activities took place.” from the report
- 01How many trained and permanent staff are on each shift now, and how is staffing matched to people's needs?
- 02What checks now show that medicines, including creams, are given as prescribed?
- 03How are care plans and risk assessments kept up to date, especially for skin damage, nutrition and moving and handling?
- 04How are Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications, conditions and expiry dates monitored?
- 05What regular activities are now available, and who is responsible for providing them?
The inspection began as a focused review of Safe, Effective and Well-led, then became comprehensive and covered all five key questions after inspectors found wider concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 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.
Every inspection of Cranswick Lodge
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2022Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2021GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.