CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Dr Anderson Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support and improved management, but two medicine records did not match the medicines counted.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 January 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, effective safeguarding arrangements, suitable risk assessments and good infection control measures. People and relatives described the care as kind, caring and compassionate.
There was one medicine recording problem. Two records did not match the amounts found, because some refused medicines had been recorded incorrectly on the new electronic system. No harm was found, and the manager acted immediately. The medicine audit had not detected the errors.
The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published on 24 November 2020. This inspection looked only at Safe and Well-led, so ratings for the other key questions were not given in this report.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to provide care safely. Staff responded quickly to people's needs, despite being busy.
“There were enough staff to provide care and support safely.” from the report
Kind and compassionate care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. They said staff knew people well and treated them with kindness and respect.
“It's very professional, there's lots of laughter and the conversations between staff and people are very kind, caring and compassionate.” from the report
Managing risks
Risks were assessed and monitored, with action taken to reduce possible harm. Care was adapted when people had specific health needs.
“Where risks had been identified, action was taken to reduce the risk of harm to people.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingTwo medicine records did not match the amounts found. The error related to how refused medicines were recorded electronically, and the medicine audit had not identified it. No harm was found and the manager acted to prevent it happening again.
“When we checked multiple medicine records, we found two where the amounts recorded did not tally with the number found.” from the report
- 01How are refused medicines now recorded on the electronic system?
- 02What checks have been added to make sure medicine records match the medicines held?
- 03How will you make sure medicine audits identify recording errors in future?
- 04How many staff will usually be available during the day and at night?
- 05What were the improvements made since the previous Requires Improvement inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and rated Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 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, November 2020
Dr Anderson Lodge is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found good effective, caring and responsive care, but the overall rating reflects earlier concerns and not all areas were reassessed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspection activity took place from 5 to 13 November 2020, with a visit to the home on 10 November. The inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional, observed lunch and activities, inspected the premises and checked care records and management records.
Inspectors found good care in the three areas they examined: effective, caring and responsive. People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care plans reflected their needs and preferences. Meals, activities, healthcare support and communication arrangements were also found to be suitable.
The service had previously been rated Inadequate after several legal breaches were found. The report says those breaches had been addressed and there were no breaches at this inspection. However, the overall rating is still Requires Improvement because it is based on findings from this inspection and the previous focused inspection. Safe and well-led were not examined during this visit.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were warm, respectful and attentive. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion by staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People and relatives were involved in reviewing care.
“Each care plan we looked at showed the person's needs and preferences had been incorporated into the planning of their care.” from the report
Food and hydration
People's food preferences and nutritional needs were recorded and monitored. Staff made referrals when extra professional support was needed.
“People's hydration and nutrition was monitored by staff, and where concerns were identified appropriate referrals to external professionals were made.” from the report
Activities and engagement
Staff adapted activities during COVID-19 restrictions. Inspectors saw staff spending time talking with people and supporting activities such as crafts and film nights.
“In our observations we saw staff took time to engage with people and spend time chatting with them.” from the report
Staff training and support
Records showed staff had relevant training, supervision and appraisals. Staff and relatives said the support and training had improved.
“Staff training records showed they had received a range of training in areas appropriate to the needs of people using the service, as well as receiving regular supervision and appraisal.” from the report
Overall rating remains below Good
needs fixingAlthough the three areas assessed were Good, the overall rating remains Requires Improvement because it includes findings from earlier inspections. The provider was still being monitored by CQC.
“The overall rating for the service has changed from inadequate to requires improvement.” from the report
Some areas were not reassessed
needs fixingSafe and well-led were not covered by this inspection. The report therefore does not give a current assessment of those areas.
“This report only covers our findings in relation to the key questions of 'is the service effective?', 'is the service caring?' and 'is the service responsive?'” from the report
No dedicated activities coordinator
minorThe home did not have an activities coordinator. Care staff led activities instead, so families may want to ask how regular activities are planned and delivered.
“The home did not have an activities coordinator.” from the report
- 01What is the current rating and latest CQC position for Safe and well-led, which were not assessed in this inspection?
- 02What further work is planned for the part of the home called The Annexe, and when will it be completed?
- 03How are activities planned and checked now that there is no activities coordinator?
- 04How will you make sure people's nutrition and hydration needs continue to be monitored?
- 05How will relatives be involved in reviewing care plans and making best-interest decisions where needed?
This was a focused inspection of Effective, Caring and Responsive; the Safe and well-led ratings were carried over from a previous focused inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 November 2020 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 Dr Anderson Lodge
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Requires improvementup from Inadequate
- September 2020Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.