CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Crowborough Lodge Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe and inspectors found suitable staffing, risk assessments, fire checks, safe recruitment and secure medicines systems. Staff understood safeguarding and how to respond to concerns.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's care needs were assessed and recorded before they moved in. Inspectors found good support with food, drinks, healthcare, staff training and consent.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff offered choices and supported people to remain independent and maintain relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home had detailed person-centred care plans and a varied activities programme. It had improved social activity for people who stayed in their rooms and handled complaints appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality checks, updated policies and ways to gather feedback from people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. The previous breach relating to good governance had been resolved.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier problems improved.
The inspection took place without warning on 3 September 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with 11 people living in the home and seven staff. They observed care, reviewed four care records, four recruitment files, training records and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, were treated kindly, had enough staff and enjoyed the food, activities and freedom to make choices. Inspectors also found that medicines, risks, infection control, care planning and healthcare support were managed well.
The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach of Regulation 17. People staying in their rooms had also not routinely received social activity. This inspection found that the provider had improved its feedback systems, policies and activities, and was no longer in breach.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors they felt relaxed, safe and well treated. Observations showed friendly relationships between people and staff.
“People were happy with the care they received, felt relaxed with staff and told us they were treated with kindness.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Staff were trained to give medicines. Records were accurate, medicines were stored safely and audits were carried out.
“Medicines were stored appropriately and securely and in line with legal requirements.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose how to spend their time, when to get up and when to go to bed. The home offered varied activities, trips and religious support.
“We saw a varied range of activities on offer which included, music, arts and crafts, quizzes, exercise, themed events and visits from external entertainers.” from the report
Improved management
Since the previous inspection, the home had introduced meetings and surveys, updated its policies and strengthened quality checks.
“Improvements had been made and people and staff were actively involved in developing the service.” from the report
Previous lack of activities for people in their rooms
needs fixingThe previous inspection found that people who stayed in their rooms did not routinely receive social activity. The home had changed its activities programme by this inspection, including one-to-one time with staff.
“At the previous inspection we identified an area of practice that needed improvement as people who remained in their rooms did not have routine access to social activity.” from the report
Previous governance breach
seriousThe previous inspection found that formal feedback systems and some policies were not good enough. Inspectors found these improvements had been made and there was no longer a breach at this inspection.
“At our last inspection the provider had failed to ensure that formal systems to gather and act on people's feedback were in place, and that policy and procedure documentation was relevant and up to date.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people who spend time in their rooms receive regular social activity and one-to-one time?
- 02How are staffing levels reviewed each day when people's needs change or staff are absent?
- 03How often are medicines records and storage checked, and what happens if an error is found?
- 04How are people and relatives currently asked for feedback, and how are changes made as a result?
- 05How often are care plans reviewed with the person and their relatives, particularly after a change in health?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; the previous Requires Improvement ratings for Responsive and Well-led improved to Good, and the previous Regulation 17 breach was resolved. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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, September 2018
Crowborough Lodge Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; care was mostly safe, effective and kind, but activities and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced, full comprehensive follow-up inspection on 13 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, visitors, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care records, staff files, medicines, complaints, incidents, policies and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment, safe medicines practice, suitable training, respectful care and support with food, drink and healthcare.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Some people, especially those who stayed in their rooms, did not always receive meaningful one-to-one activities. Policies were out of date, records were not always well maintained and quality checks did not identify or resolve all problems.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in December 2016, including risk management and recruitment. However, inspectors said the improvements were not sufficient for consistently high standards. They made one recommendation about activities and found one breach concerning good governance.
Safe medicines support
Medicines records had no gaps, staff understood people's support needs and medicine checks were carried out. A problem with securing the medicine trolley was fixed during the inspection.
“MARs were completed and did not have any gaps.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw friendly interactions. People said staff knew them well, respected their privacy and supported their choices.
“People received care that staff delivered in a dignified and respectful manner.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received relevant training, induction, supervision and appraisals. New staff completed an induction and a probationary period before working independently.
“People received care from staff who were supported in their roles.” from the report
Support with health and diet
People's food preferences and dietary needs were met. Staff monitored health, weight, eating and drinking, and helped people access healthcare when needed.
“People received food that met their preferences and dietary needs.” from the report
Improved recruitment and risk management
The report says the home had improved recruitment checks and environmental risk management since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection, we found the service had made sufficient improvements to recruit staff in a safe manner.” from the report
Limited one-to-one activities
needs fixingPeople who stayed in their rooms were not always offered meaningful activities. There was no programme to support their individual interests, so some people could become isolated or lonely.
“There was no programme of one to one activities for people who preferred to remain in their bedrooms.” from the report
Out-of-date policies
needs fixingSome policies referred to old CQC guidance and older regulations. Some did not match how the home worked, and review dates were not available.
“The provider had not ensured policies and procedures were up to date.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousQuality assurance systems did not reliably identify and resolve the shortfalls found by inspectors. Feedback meetings for people and staff were also limited.
“Quality assurance systems were not effective in identifying and resolving shortfalls at the service.” from the report
Record keeping
needs fixingRecords were described as unsystematic. Some care record changes did not show who made them or when, and old staff records had not been archived.
“Record keeping was unsystematic.” from the report
Unsafe conservatory
needs fixingThe conservatory contained clutter and extra furniture, was cold, had only one working light and had a loosely hanging smoke detector. The manager said people did not use it in winter and repairs were ongoing.
“We found that one area in the service was not safe for people to use.” from the report
- 01What one-to-one activities are now available for people who prefer to stay in their rooms, and how do you record their participation and enjoyment?
- 02How have you updated the policies that inspectors found were based on old CQC guidance?
- 03What quality checks are now used to identify and fix problems, and how are the results shared with residents and families?
- 04How do you make sure care record changes are dated and show who made them?
- 05Has the conservatory been cleared, repaired and made safe, including the lighting and smoke detector?
This was an unannounced full comprehensive follow-up inspection covering all five key questions and checking improvements since the December 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 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 Crowborough Lodge Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Crowborough Lodge Residential Care Home →
- September 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Crowborough Lodge Residential Care Home →
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful 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.