CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Durlston Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staff shortages sometimes meant the home could not provide all commissioned support hours. This reduced people's choices about activities and community access. Inspectors also found one inaccurate medicines record and gaps in some safety-check records.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were reflected in care plans. Staff had relevant training, people received support with food, drink and healthcare, and mental capacity and restriction arrangements were reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed people being treated with kindness, consideration, privacy and dignity. Staff used pictorial communication, signing and attention to body language to support people's choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and regularly updated. Staff knew people's needs well and supported community access, family contact and communication, although staffing levels sometimes meant alternative activities were offered.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team promoted person-centred care and had systems for checking records, reviewing incidents and involving families and staff. Inspectors received positive feedback about communication and partnership working.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home Requires Improvement for safety because staffing, medicines records and some safety checks were not always reliable.
Inspectors visited on 15 and 16 September 2022. The inspection was unannounced, with two inspectors. They spoke with managers, staff, relatives and a health and social care professional. They also observed people, and checked care plans, medicines records, audits and other documents.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and autism, although it can support up to six. Inspectors found kind, respectful and personalised care. People were supported to make choices, communicate in different ways, access healthcare and keep in contact with family.
Safety was the main weakness. Staffing shortages sometimes reduced people's choice of activities and access to the community. One medicines record was inaccurate, body maps were not being used for skin creams, and some safety checks had gaps. The provider said after the inspection that it had stopped its safe staffing limit and increased staff pay.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, meaning inspectors found people were not always protected from avoidable harm.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people treated with consideration and kindness. Staff respected privacy and encouraged people to do things for themselves where possible.
“We observed people being treated with consideration and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and preferences. Staff understood the people they supported and adapted care when needed.
“The care plans we reviewed evidenced that peoples needs and choices were being respected.” from the report
Communication with families
The home used newsletters, emails, phone calls and different communication methods to involve people and keep families informed.
“The house communicates well with me, using email and phone calls, I can contact them at any time.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff received regular training and were supported to complete the Care Certificate. Inspectors found staff understood people's needs and risk plans.
“Staff were supported to complete the Care Certificate, which is an agreed set of standards” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including the safe use of personal protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines records were not always accurate
seriousOne person's controlled-drugs record was signed, but the corresponding medicines administration record was not. Inspectors also noted that body maps were not being used when creams were applied.
“This meant that the provider did not have an accurate record to demonstrate people had their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Gaps in safety checks
needs fixingSome safety checks were not fully completed. Inspectors gave the example of missing records for flushing taps to reduce legionella risks.
“We found that these were not always fully completed, for example there were gaps in the records of taps being flushed to reduce the risks of legionella.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now working on each shift, and has the staffing shortage stopped affecting people's activities and community access?
- 02Has the home stopped the safe staffing system, and what evidence shows that people now receive all their commissioned support hours?
- 03What checks are now in place to make sure medicines are recorded correctly on both the controlled drugs book and the MAR sheet?
- 04Are body maps now used when creams are applied, and how is this checked?
- 05Have all missing safety-check records, including tap flushing records, been completed and reviewed?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service and assessed all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the earlier Good rating in 2019 was under the previous provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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.
Every inspection of Durlston Lodge
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2020.
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 two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,020 to £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.