CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eden Lodge Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Good overall and no longer in special measures; inspectors found safe, kind care but said improvements in leadership needed to be sustained.
Inspectors visited on 30 and 31 March 2021. They spoke with five people, 11 staff and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records. They also checked infection prevention and control.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People felt safe, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, care plans were more personalised and staff were kind and respectful. People also had choices about food, activities and how they spent their day.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. A new manager had introduced better systems, audits and electronic care plans, but inspectors said these changes needed to become firmly established. The home had previously been rated Inadequate and placed in Special Measures, but it was no longer Inadequate, in breach of regulations or in Special Measures after this inspection.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and monitored, medicines were managed safely and infection control procedures were in place.
“People felt safe living at the home and were supported by appropriately trained and competent staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's choices and independence.
“People were supported by a kind and friendly staff team who cared for them with respect.” from the report
Personalised care plans
The new electronic care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, backgrounds and health conditions in more detail.
“Since the last inspection the new manager had introduced electronic care plans.” from the report
Activities and choice
People had a wide choice of activities and were involved in deciding what they wanted to do.
“There was a full-time activities coordinator who offered a wide choice of activities for people to get involved in” from the report
Leadership systems still new
needs fixingThe home had introduced new audits and management processes, but inspectors had not yet seen enough evidence that the improvements would last.
“Whilst improvements had been made these need to be sustained and embedded.” from the report
Incident analysis
minorAccidents and incidents were reviewed, but the manager accepted that the analysis could be improved.
“the manager acknowledged more work could be done to improve the analysis and had planned to do so.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingEnd of life plans were in place, but some still needed to be more personal and include more input from families.
“The manager said they were still working on making these more personalised and get more family input.” from the report
- 01How will you show that the new audits and care planning systems continue to work over time?
- 02How are you improving the analysis of accidents and incidents, and how are lessons shared with staff?
- 03How will families be involved in making end of life care plans more personalised?
- 04How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs change?
- 05How are people's views gathered about activities, meals and daily choices?
This was a follow-up inspection of action required after the previous inspection, with infection prevention and control also checked under the Safe key question. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inadequate and still in special measures; inspectors found serious ongoing risks in safety, care, staffing and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 November and 7 December 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home remained Inadequate for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found poor risk assessments, unsafe medicines practice, weak infection control, too few staff and incomplete care plans. Safeguarding concerns were not always reported or acted on properly.
Some improvements had been made, including recruitment records, mental capacity paperwork and staff training systems. However, these were incomplete and did not provide enough assurance that people were safe or receiving suitable care.
The home had been rated Inadequate at the previous inspection and had not made enough improvement after its action plan. It remained in special measures. CQC restricted admissions, required reports from the provider and issued a warning notice.
Access to healthcare
People were supported to access healthcare when needed, and the home sought help from relevant professionals.
“People were supported to access healthcare when required and the provider sought input from relevant professionals such as occupational therapists to ensure people's wellbeing.” from the report
Helpful communication with a professional
A visiting healthcare professional said staff were helpful and contacted them when required.
“A visiting healthcare professional said the care staff were always very helpful and contacted them when required.” from the report
People enjoyed the food
One person told inspectors they were happy with the food, although inspectors also found weaknesses in recording dietary needs.
“The food is lovely here, I have nothing to complain about” from the report
Some improvements made
Inspectors noted improvements in recruitment records, mental capacity paperwork and staff training systems, although these were still incomplete.
“Improvements had been made to the mental capacity assessment paperwork and records of best interest decisions.” from the report
People were at risk of harm
seriousRisk assessments were missing or unsuitable. This included risks linked to choking, falls, respite stays and emergency evacuation.
“People's risks in relation to their health and care needs were not being assessed, mitigated or managed effectively in order to keep people safe.” from the report
Unsafe medicines and infection control
seriousSome medicines records and controlled drug records were not correct. Infection control practices, including PPE use and isolation of new residents, were not always safe.
“Best practice guidelines were not always being followed to help mitigate the risk of COVID-19.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousStaffing levels did not match people's needs. Absences were not always covered and staff said they could not take breaks because the home was short staffed.
“Staff absences were not always covered, and staff felt more staff were needed.” from the report
Incomplete care plans and training
seriousSome people did not have care plans for important needs, including diabetes. Not all staff had completed safeguarding or moving and handling training.
“People did not always have care plans in place to guide staff on how to support them in an individualised way.” from the report
Poor leadership and monitoring
seriousThe home lacked effective oversight. Quality checks did not identify risks, incidents were not consistently investigated and lessons were not reliably learned.
“There remained a lack of effective systems in place for quality monitoring and risk management, which led to errors and risks going unidentified.” from the report
Poor communication with relatives
needs fixingRelatives described not receiving promised updates and said concerns raised with the home were not always followed up.
“Relatives we spoke with described a worrying lack of communication.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every resident has current risk assessments for choking, falls, respite stays, allergies and emergency evacuation?
- 02How are medicines, controlled drugs and as-required medicines now checked and recorded?
- 03How many care staff are on each shift, how is this based on residents' needs, and how are absences covered?
- 04What safeguarding training and competency checks have all staff completed?
- 05What admissions restrictions or reporting conditions remain, and what evidence of improvement has CQC accepted since this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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 Eden Lodge Residential Care Home
8 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Eden Lodge Residential Care Home →
- March 2021Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Eden Lodge Residential Care Home →
- March 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 April 2011.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.