CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Furze Hill Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, accidents and safeguarding concerns were managed appropriately. Staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were also found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had access to healthcare and staff received induction, training and supervision. People's needs, nutrition, equipment and communication were assessed and reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness and respected their privacy, dignity, choices and independence. People and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's needs and preferences. Inspectors found a good range of personalised activities, a complaints process and support for people at the end of their lives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, with regular audits and action plans. The management team involved people, relatives and staff in changes to the home.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
Two inspectors made an unannounced visit on 18 April 2023. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, reviewed care records and medicines, checked recruitment files, and examined records about the running of the home.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, good support with health needs, respectful care and activities based on people's interests.
The previous inspection, published in August 2021, rated the home Requires Improvement and found breaches of regulations. This inspection found that the required improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach.
Staffing and safety
There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Call bells were answered promptly and people were not rushed.
“Sufficient staff were deployed to meet people's needs safely. Call bells were responded to promptly and people were not rushed by staff.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were received, stored and given safely. Records were complete, stock was checked daily and staff competence was assessed.
“People received their medicines safely and in line with their prescriptions.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff spent time talking with people and created a relaxed atmosphere. People were supported with dignity and encouraged to remain independent.
“Staff took time to sit and talk with people, generating conversation to include others.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were linked to people's interests, music, life histories and past occupations. Staff also spent time with people who stayed in their rooms.
“Personalised activities were planned around people's interests such as using people's favourite music or past occupations within quizzes, games and when planning entertainers to visit.” from the report
Improving management
The home used audits and action plans to identify and address shortfalls. People, relatives and staff were asked for feedback, and changes were made.
“Regular audits were completed to monitor the quality of the service provided. These were completed in detail and clear actions provided.” from the report
End of life plans still developing
minorPeople had end of life care plans, but the manager said these were being expanded to include more detail. Ask what information has since been added.
“The registered manager told us they were looking to expand these plans to include greater detail.” from the report
- 01What extra detail has now been added to people's end of life care plans?
- 02How do you check that improvements from the previous inspection are still being maintained?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan?
- 04How will activities be adapted if my relative prefers to stay in their room?
- 05How are changes in my relative's health, nutrition or risks shared with all staff?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises, and it followed up shortfalls found at the June 2021 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 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.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found serious leadership weaknesses alongside gaps in safety, health monitoring and personalised care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 June 2021. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was not consistently safe or effective. Risks, accidents, injuries and healthcare needs were not always recorded, monitored or followed up. Some safeguarding concerns were not reported to the local authority. Staff training did not consistently cover people's individual needs.
People were usually treated kindly in individual interactions. Medicines and infection control were managed well, and relatives were helped to keep in contact during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, care was not always personalised, people and relatives were not fully involved in care reviews, and activities did not consistently match people's interests.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Requires Improvement. Well-led was rated Inadequate, meaning there were widespread and significant weaknesses in leadership and oversight.
Medicines
Medicines were managed safely. Staff training and competency checks were in place, and inspectors found no gaps in administration records.
“Medicines were managed safely. Staff received training in administering medicines and their competency was checked.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, PPE, testing, visiting arrangements and outbreak procedures were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Kind interactions
People appeared comfortable and relaxed with staff. Staff supported people with day-to-day choices and respected privacy.
“Staff approached people in a friendly way and people appeared relaxed in the presence of staff.” from the report
Family contact
The home worked to maintain contact between people and their relatives during visitor restrictions, including by supporting video calls.
“Relatives were grateful for the efforts made by staff to maintaining contact when the service was closed to visitors.” from the report
Mental capacity practice
Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were in place. The home had improved and was no longer in breach of the consent regulation.
“People's mental capacity to make specific decisions had been assessed.” from the report
Managing safety risks
seriousHealth risks, falls, injuries and skin damage were not always assessed or monitored properly. Some records gave contradictory advice, increasing the risk of avoidable harm.
“Risks arising from people's healthcare needs were not consistently recorded and monitored.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
seriousPotential safeguarding concerns, including unexplained injuries and incidents involving another person, were not always reported to the local authority.
“Potential safeguarding concerns were not always reviewed and reported to the local authority in line with requirements.” from the report
Healthcare records
seriousRecords of appointments and actions were incomplete or contradictory. Staff could therefore miss important information about people's health needs.
“People's health care needs were not consistently monitored.” from the report
Personalised care
seriousStaff could not consistently describe people's hobbies, interests or life histories. Activities were mainly games and quizzes and did not suit everyone.
“Staff were unable to describe people's hobbies, interests and life histories.” from the report
Staff training
seriousTraining was not consistent across the staff team in areas such as dementia, mental health and specific healthcare needs.
“Staff were not always able to demonstrate their skills in areas such as supporting people living with dementia and mental health support needs.” from the report
Leadership and records
seriousQuality checks did not reliably identify or fix problems, and previous improvements had not been maintained. Care records and some management records lacked important detail.
“Quality assurance systems were not robust and not embedded into practice.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording and reviewing risks such as falls, infections, fluid intake, skin injuries and changes in health?
- 02How do you make sure every safeguarding concern is reported to the local authority and notified to CQC when required?
- 03How are healthcare appointments, advice and follow-up actions recorded and shared with all relevant staff?
- 04How do you use each person's life history and interests to plan their care and activities?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in regular care plan reviews, and how do you check that previous improvements have been sustained?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, prompted partly by concerns about health monitoring and emergency arrangements; it did not examine the circumstances of an unexpected death because that was subject to an ongoing safeguarding investigation. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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 Furze Hill Lodge
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 November 2010.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.