CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Daffodil Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, medicines and risk management were considered safe, but inspectors recommended improvements to cleanliness and maintenance.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection. Inspectors did note that some staff did not consistently use language that upheld people's dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had systems to monitor the service and staff described good teamwork. However, there was no registered manager in post and management oversight had been reduced.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Daffodil Lodge was rated Good overall, but inspectors found concerns about cleanliness, maintenance and protecting people's dignity.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 October 2022. One inspector and one Expert by Experience spoke with people, a relative and staff. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, staffing levels were enough, medicines were managed safely and risks were assessed. Staff worked well with health and social care professionals, and people were supported to make choices where possible.
Inspectors were not assured that all areas were clean and suitably maintained. They also heard staff sometimes described people by the help they needed instead of using their names. Recommendations were made about the environment and dignity. The home had no registered manager at the time, although a new manager had been recruited during the inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs, and recruitment checks were generally in place.
“The provider ensured appropriate staffing arrangements were in place to meet the assessed needs of people in a timely manner.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and given by trained staff. People told inspectors they received them as prescribed.
“Medicines were stored securely, and access was limited to those staff trained to administer them.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and people told inspectors they felt safe.
“People were protected against the risk of abuse.” from the report
Teamwork
Staff spoke positively about working together and supporting people. Inspectors saw a positive atmosphere and staff who knew the people they supported.
“Staff worked well together and supported people toward positive outcomes.” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with social workers, GPs and community nurses to support people's needs.
“The management team and staff worked in partnership with a variety of health and social care professionals to ensure people received the support they needed.” from the report
Cleanliness and maintenance
needs fixingSeveral communal areas were unclean, stained and in need of refurbishment. Inspectors made a recommendation for the environment to be cleaned and maintained properly.
“We were not assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
Respectful language
needs fixingSome staff referred to people by the support they needed rather than by their names. Inspectors made a recommendation about dignity and person-centred support.
“We heard some staff talking about some people by the support they required rather than using their names.” from the report
Emergency records
minorSome personal emergency evacuation plans did not match between paper and electronic records. The information was updated during the inspection.
“The information kept in folders did not consistently match the electronic version held on the computer.” from the report
Management arrangements
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post, and management oversight had been reduced because some managers and staff had also worked at another home. A new manager had been recruited during the inspection.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to clean, maintain and refurbish the communal areas?
- 02How are staff being reminded to use people's names and protect their dignity?
- 03Has the new manager started, and have they applied to become registered with the CQC?
- 04How have the paper and electronic emergency evacuation plans been checked to make sure they match?
- 05How are staffing levels and management oversight being monitored while leadership arrangements change?
This inspection rated Safe and Well-led only; the report does not give ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, PPE supplies, testing and visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 1 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures.
The home had up-to-date infection control training, enough PPE and hand gel, regular COVID-19 testing, and cleaning arrangements. Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, admissions, visitors and outbreaks appropriately.
The home helped people keep in touch with relatives through visits and electronic contact. Staff and visiting professionals met the COVID-19 vaccination requirement described in the report.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas.
PPE and infection control
Staff had infection control training, and inspectors confirmed that PPE and hand gel were available. The home said it had enough PPE in stock.
“Training has been informative with COVID-19 guidance, we have never been short of PPE.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home used mobile phones and computer systems to help people keep in touch with relatives, alongside in-person visiting.
“Social media systems such as mobile phones and computer systems were used to facilitate contact between people and their relatives.” from the report
Clean surroundings
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with cleaning schedules and extra arrangements to sanitise the building.
“The home was clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules were in place and PPE stations placed around the home in individual rooms.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently manage staffing pressures, and have these affected people's care?
- 02How do you keep enough PPE and hand gel available, and how often are supplies checked?
- 03What are the current arrangements for relatives to visit and keep in contact with people?
- 04How are people and staff tested for infections, and what happens if there is an outbreak?
- 05What has changed since the targeted inspection on 1 February 2022?
This was a targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating for the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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.
Every inspection of Daffodil Lodge
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 March 2018.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.