CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Engelhard Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines management, safe recruitment checks and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home supported people to make choices, but best-interest decisions were not always recorded and liberty protection applications had not been made where needed. Some people and relatives also said meals were too close together.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and caring. Inspectors observed staff supporting people gently, patiently and with dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and activities were provided. Inspectors found that care records could be more concise, and the home planned to improve how minor complaints were recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had oversight of the service through audits and an improvement plan. People, relatives and staff felt involved in the running of the home.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Engelhard Lodge Care Home is rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but legal decision-making records needed improvement.
This was the home’s first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 25 April 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and other records.
People were generally safe and treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments, good infection control and personalised care. People had choices, activities and support to stay connected with others.
The main weakness was under Effective. The home had not always recorded best-interest decisions, and applications had not been made where restrictions might amount to depriving people of their liberty. Inspectors also noted concerns about the spacing of meals and the recording of minor complaints.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement, meaning care and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to respond to people’s needs promptly. Recruitment files showed the necessary checks had been completed.
“There were enough staff to support people and respond to their needs in a timely way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Observations showed staff supported people gently, patiently and respectfully.
“Our observations showed staff spoke with people in a caring way and were gentle when supporting people to mobilise around the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records reflected people’s wishes, abilities and preferences. Staff supported independence, including through adapted cutlery and crockery.
“A review of people's care records showed their care was planned in a person-centred way.” from the report
Activities and community links
People had access to individual and group activities, events and links with the wider community.
“There were a number of activities provided at the service.” from the report
Management oversight
The manager and senior staff carried out audits and acted on improvements identified by the local authority.
“The registered manager and senior care staff undertook regular audits of different areas of the service.” from the report
Liberty safeguards and decision records
seriousThe home had not applied for liberty safeguards where restrictions might have deprived people of their liberty. Best-interest decisions were also not always documented, creating a risk that restrictions were not properly authorised or recorded.
“As a result people might have been unlawfully deprived of their liberty.” from the report
Spacing of meals
minorSome people and relatives said breakfast, lunch and the evening meal were not evenly spaced. The manager said meal timings would be discussed with people.
“Some people and their relatives told us there was too little time between lunch and breakfast.” from the report
Recording minor complaints
minorThe home had a complaints policy, but minor grumbles had not been formally recorded. The manager said a record of actions taken would be introduced.
“There was no formal process for recording these, but the registered manager told us they were going to implement a record to keep note of actions taken.” from the report
Care record layout
minorCare records contained repeated information, which could make them harder to navigate. They were reviewed regularly, but the report said they could be more concise.
“However, the care records could be more succinct as the same information was repeated throughout which sometimes made them difficult to navigate.” from the report
- 01Have all required liberty protection or deprivation of liberty applications now been made, and how do you check this for each person?
- 02How are best-interest decisions recorded, including who was involved and what was decided?
- 03What changes have been made to the timing of breakfast, lunch and the evening meal?
- 04How are minor complaints and the actions taken now recorded?
- 05How have care records been simplified so staff and families can find important information easily?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; there were no previous ratings to carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 July 2023 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 Engelhard Lodge Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 October 2021.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.