CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eastrop House and Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines were generally managed and given safely, taking account of people's needs and preferences. For some complex medicines, records did not clearly show that doses followed an agreed plan.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Not rated; a targeted inspection found medicines were generally managed safely, but some complex medicines records were not clear.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 8 July 2021. It followed concerns about how medicines were given to one person. One inspector carried out the visit with remote support from a pharmacist specialist inspector.
Inspectors spoke with three staff members and checked medicine records, controlled drug records and the care plans of two people who had controlled drugs prescribed. They found no general concerns about how medicines were managed, given or recorded.
The home supported people's safety, wellbeing and preferences when giving medicines. However, records did not always clearly show that complex medicines were given in line with an agreed plan. The provider was asked to review these care plans.
The home was inspected but not rated. The previous overall rating was Good, but this visit did not assess the whole service or change the previous rating.
Medicines generally given safely
Inspectors found that people received their medicines in line with their needs and preferences. Staff also considered people's wider wellbeing when supporting them.
“People received their medicines safely and in line with their needs and preferences.” from the report
Controlled drug records
The home had arrangements for recording medicines that were stored, given or disposed of, including controlled drugs.
“The provider had arrangements in place for keeping records relating to medicines stored, administered and disposed of.” from the report
Unclear records for changing doses
needs fixingFor people with complex medicines needs, care records did not always clearly show that doses followed an agreed plan. The medicine administration records were not always clear when the dose changed from day to day.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) supplied by the provider's pharmacist were not always a clear source of information where people's medicines regime meant they did not always receive the same dose each day.” from the report
- 01How have you reviewed the medicines care plans for people whose doses reduce over time?
- 02How do staff know the correct dose when it changes from one day to the next?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given in line with plans agreed with the person, their family and health professionals?
- 04How are controlled drugs recorded, checked and disposed of?
- 05What was done in response to the concerns about one person's medicines?
This was a targeted inspection of the specific concerns about safe medicines management; it did not assess the whole Safe key question or the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Overall rating remained Good, but this targeted inspection was not rated and found two infection-control policies needed updating.
Inspectors made an unannounced, targeted visit on 24 November 2020. They followed up concerns about changes in registered managers and the culture in the home. They also checked infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found that infection-control procedures were being followed. There was enough personal protective equipment, and staff used it properly. Two policies needed amendments to match national guidance, but inspectors found no evidence this affected people's safety.
Staff and relatives described the manager as a positive and stabilising influence. Inspectors found evidence that people were involved in their care, that staff understood their roles, and that quality and safety were monitored.
This inspection did not reassess the full service. The overall rating remained Good because the previous rating from 2017 carried forward. Safe and Well-led were inspected but not rated, and the other three areas were not examined.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that staff followed infection-control procedures and used protective equipment safely. The home had arrangements for visitors, testing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured the provider had robust infection control procedures in place, which staff were following, to keep people safe from the risks of COVID-19.” from the report
Improving culture
Staff and families said the manager had helped create a more stable and positive home. Staff said they felt able to raise concerns.
“Staff told us they felt the culture within the home had improved.” from the report
Involvement in care
People were involved in planning their care and working towards personal goals. The home used communication aids suited to people's needs.
“We could see good evidence of involvement of people in planning their care and the service was focussed on outcomes and achievements for people.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings and an improvement plan to monitor quality and safety. Higher-risk actions were prioritised and tracked.
“There was a clear schedule of audits which covered a wide range of quality and safety in the service.” from the report
Family communication
Relatives received regular updates, including phone calls and photographs when visits were limited. Relatives told inspectors they had confidence in the manager.
“The service was flexible in how often and in what way families were kept up to date and reassured, including phone calls and sending photographs of people to their loved ones.” from the report
Policies needed updating
minorInspectors identified two infection-control policy amendments needed to bring them in line with national guidance and best practice. They found no evidence that this affected people's safety.
“We identified two amendments to the provider's policies related to infection control to bring them in line with national guidance and best practice.” from the report
- 01Have the two infection-control policies now been amended to match national guidance?
- 02Has the manager's application to register with the CQC been processed?
- 03How do you check that the improved culture in the home is continuing?
- 04How are people and their relatives involved in care-plan reviews and decisions about support?
- 05What were the higher-risk actions in the service improvement plan, and have they all been completed?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about management, culture and infection control; it did not assess the full five key questions, so the previous overall Good rating carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 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 Eastrop House and Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- October 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 October 2016.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.