CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Deer Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines practice and appropriate infection control measures. Recruitment checks were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supervision, and people could access healthcare support. Some training had just passed its expiry date, but the manager booked it for staff after inspectors raised this.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and maintain important relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Digital care plans set out people's individual needs, preferences and support. People were offered activities, and they knew who to speak to if they had concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as approachable and open, and quality audits were in place. However, some audits had not been completed recently, DoLS notifications had not been submitted, and formal resident meetings were not yet in place.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Deer Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some management checks needing improvement.
The unannounced inspection took place on 15 November 2022. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, recruitment files, training records and management checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments, good support with food and healthcare, and respectful care.
People and relatives described the home as safe, friendly and homely. Care plans were personalised and activities were available. The home had systems for managing complaints and incidents.
Some checks had not been completed recently, some staff training had passed its expiry date, and formal ways to gather residents' feedback were not yet in place. The manager said action would be taken, and inspectors planned to follow this up.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff administered medicines safely, checked records and gained consent.
“There were enough staff to support people and recruitment procedures were robust.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind and friendly. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found that people's dignity and independence were promoted.
“We observed warm and kind interactions between staff and people using the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's communication, continence, lifestyle, emotional support and personal care needs. Staff knew people's needs and preferences.
“Digital care plans were in place and covered a number of areas including communication, continence, daily life/lifestyle, emotional support and personal care and others.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People were offered food choices and support with eating and drinking. The home worked with healthcare professionals to monitor people's needs.
“People and relatives told us they were happy with the food choices that were available.” from the report
Some training was overdue
needs fixingSome staff training had just gone beyond its expiry period. The manager booked the training after inspectors raised this.
“We noted that some of the training had just gone beyond the expiry period.” from the report
Some audits had been missed
needs fixingSome regular safety and quality checks had not been completed recently. The manager said this had happened while the registered manager was away and that the checks would restart.
“We noted that some of these had not been done recently which we raised with the manager.” from the report
Missing DoLS notifications
needs fixingThe provider had not submitted notifications relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations. The manager said these would be submitted as soon as possible.
“there had been none submitted in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations.” from the report
Limited formal feedback
minorThere were no residents' meetings and no formal system was yet being used to collect people's feedback. New resident review forms were due to be introduced.
“There were no residents meetings to hear feedback about the service such as the activities provisions or meals.” from the report
- 01Have all staff completed the training that had passed its expiry date, and how do you check this now?
- 02Have the missed fire safety, water temperature, health and safety, infection control and bedroom audits been completed again?
- 03Have all required DoLS notifications now been submitted to the CQC?
- 04How are residents and relatives now asked for feedback about meals, activities and the service?
- 05How is the change to the new registered manager being managed?
This inspection covered all five CQC questions and included infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection under the new provider, while the previous overall rating was Good under the former provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 December 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 Deer Lodge
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 2021.
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 Richmond upon Thames
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.