CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Doddington Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were in place, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Doddington Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found effective infection control during a targeted COVID-19 visit.
Inspectors visited on 17 February 2022. The visit was announced two hours beforehand and focused on infection prevention and control during COVID-19 outbreaks. They also asked about staffing pressures.
The home was caring for 19 people, some living with dementia. Inspectors found that a separate unit and staff team allowed the home to care for people who had COVID-19 while reducing risks to others.
Inspectors found the home clean, with suitable supplies of personal protective equipment, regular testing and arrangements for visits that followed government guidance. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a standard overall quality rating.
Managing COVID-19 cases
The home used a self-contained unit with its own staff team to reduce the risk of infection spreading to other people.
“The unit was self-contained and had its own staff team which helped to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found that infection control systems were in place and understood by staff.
“Effective infection control systems were in place and these were understood and followed by staff.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and touch points and equipment were regularly wiped down.
“The home was clean and fresh and there was regular wiping down of touch points and equipment.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors found sufficient PPE and testing arrangements for people and staff.
“Hand sanitiser and personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily available in the home and there were sufficient supplies of PPE.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you manage staffing pressures if several staff were absent because of COVID-19?
- 02How would my relative be cared for if they tested positive for COVID-19?
- 03How do you keep the separate unit and staff teams organised during an outbreak?
- 04What testing arrangements would apply to my relative and to visiting staff?
- 05How would visits work if there were a COVID-19 outbreak at the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about 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 11 March 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 2021
Doddington Lodge is rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because inspectors found risks with medicines, infection control and one person's care.
This was the home's first inspection. Inspectors visited on 25 February 2021 and made follow-up phone calls on 26 February and 1 March. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found kind and personalised care, enough staff, suitable training, support with food and healthcare, activities, and a positive management culture.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. One person at medium risk of choking was not constantly supervised while eating as their care plan required. Medicines records and instructions were not always clear, and staff did not always follow infection control practices. The manager took immediate action on some issues, but further improvement was needed.
Kind, respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff spent time with people, involved them in decisions and respected their privacy and independence.
“People were cared for by staff who spent time with them and treated them well.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to support people promptly. The manager also stepped in when there was a staff shortage.
“People were supported by sufficient staff who spent time with them and supported them in a timely manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, relationships, communication needs and preferences. Relatives said they were kept informed about changes in care.
“People's care plans included information, which was important to them, from details of their daily routine to their relationships with their relatives.” from the report
Positive management changes
The manager had improved communication, staff support and quality checks. Staff described a better culture and improved morale.
“Since being in post the manager had identified a lack of communication between staff members and with people's relatives and other healthcare professionals.” from the report
Choking risk not followed
seriousOne person who was at medium risk of choking was not constantly supervised while eating, even though their care plan required this. Inspectors said this placed the person at risk of harm.
“One person who was at medium risk of choking was not being constantly supervised whilst they ate their meal, as documented in their care plan.” from the report
Medicines records and instructions
seriousInstructions for medicines used when people were distressed were not specific to each person. Records also did not always explain why medicines were needed, and one dose was not clearly recorded.
“Therefore, staff and especially agency staff may not know when they should administer the medicine.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome staff wore jewellery when this was not allowed and did not always follow good hand hygiene. Inspectors also found dirty equipment and fittings that were difficult to clean.
“We were not always assured that the provider was using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) effectively and safely meaning people were not always protected from cross infection.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
needs fixingPeople living with dementia did not have enough signage to help them find their way around independently. The manager planned to improve the environment and provide further dementia training.
“People living with dementia did not benefit from adequate signage around the home, this would help them to orientate around the home independently.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure people at risk of choking are supervised exactly as their care plans require?
- 02How are medicines given for agitation or distress linked to each person's individual signs and needs?
- 03What checks now make sure medicine records explain why medicines are needed and whether each dose was given?
- 04How do you check staff follow rules about jewellery, hand hygiene and PPE?
- 05What changes have been made to signage and the environment for people living with dementia?
This was the home's first comprehensive inspection and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures because of coronavirus. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 2021 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 Doddington Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2021GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 September 2019.
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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.