CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Godiva Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Godiva Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some remaining issues around staffing at busy times and the environment.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 16 August 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care, including support at lunchtime, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, complaints and quality checks.
The home provides care for up to 40 older people living with dementia. There were 37 people living there during the visit. Inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
The previous inspection in July 2017 rated the home Requires Improvement. Inspectors had found problems with managing risks, responding to people's needs, personalised care, complaints and management checks. At this inspection, they found the required improvements had been made.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared settled and comfortable. Staff used patience, reassurance and kindness, while protecting people's privacy and dignity.
“Staff treated people with kindness and patience.” from the report
Personalised dementia care
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and communication needs. Care plans gave staff clear information about how to support each person.
“At this inspection we found care plans were person centred, detailed and up to date.” from the report
Safer care systems
Risk assessments, medicines records and staff recruitment checks had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found no gaps in the medicines administration records they reviewed.
“We looked at the MARs for nine people, there were no gaps or omissions on the MARs we viewed.” from the report
Improved leadership
Staff said communication, support and morale had improved. Managers carried out regular checks and used the results to plan further improvements.
“We found there had been improvements in all areas where we had identified concerns at our last inspection in July 2017.” from the report
Staffing during busy periods
needs fixingTeam leaders supported care staff at busy times but also gave medicines. Inspectors said this could create a risk of medicine errors if they had to stop administering medicines to help someone.
“This is not good practice and could lead to errors in people receiving their medicines.” from the report
Protective clothing at mealtimes
needs fixingSome staff were not wearing protective clothing when serving meals. Managers said they would address this with staff.
“However, on the day of our inspection we observed some staff members were not wearing PPE when serving meals.” from the report
Building and fire safety follow-up
needs fixingTwo areas had carpets with an odour, and some medium- or high-risk fire actions had passed their advised completion dates. The home had planned work to address these points.
“Some of the actions that had been recommended as 'high or medium risk' had exceeded the timeframe in which completion was advised.” from the report
End-of-life plans
minorSome end-of-life care plans contained little information. Staff said some people did not want to discuss their wishes, but inspectors noted that planning was not complete for everyone.
“People had 'End of Life' care plans but some had little information recorded.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there is enough staff support during busy morning and medicine times?
- 02What was done about the carpets with an odour, and has the replacement flooring been installed?
- 03Have all the high- and medium-risk fire safety actions now been completed?
- 04How will activities be provided if care staff take over from activity co-ordinators?
- 05How do you record and review each person's end-of-life wishes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas, and the ratings for all five areas were given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 September 2018 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 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but staffing, records, complaints and safety checks were not consistently good.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 27 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, mealtimes and how people were supported. They also checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and safety checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Caring. Staff had relevant training, understood dementia care and supported people with kindness, privacy and dignity. Medicines were being managed safely after earlier medication errors, and people received help with food, drink and health appointments.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, and also for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found periods without staff in communal areas, risks and daily care were not always recorded clearly, complaints were not always handled properly, and some environmental checks were missed. The provider said some issues had been addressed after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and respectfully. Staff understood people's preferences and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff were kind and compassionate in the way they interacted with people and frequently reassured people by touching their arms and hands.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received induction and regular training suited to the needs of people living with dementia. Their skills were checked and kept up to date.
“Training records showed that staff training was monitored by the provider to ensure staff skills were updated regularly.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Earlier medication errors had led to new procedures, retraining and checks. At this inspection, medicines were administered, stored and recorded safely.
“We found medicines were stored and disposed of safely in accordance with current guidelines.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
People were supported to take part in activities, hobbies and social events. Staff also offered activities linked to individual interests.
“Staff encouraged people to maintain their interests and to socialise with others if they wished.” from the report
Staff not always available
seriousThere were times when no staff were present in communal lounges. Inspectors saw an altercation between two people without staff supervision and found that people sometimes waited for help.
“There were times during our inspection when we observed there was no staff presence in the lounge areas.” from the report
Care records and skin care
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain clearly how risks, including skin conditions, should be managed. Prescribed creams had run out and some daily records were missing or unclear.
“Some care plans were not always sufficiently detailed to show how risks were managed, particularly in regards to people's skin care.” from the report
Delays responding to requests
seriousInspectors found that people did not always receive prompt help, especially at busy times. A call bell rang for around 10 minutes before staff were found to assist.
“We noticed a call bell in a toilet ringing for around 10 minutes.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingThe lunchtime experience varied between units. Some people were not encouraged to eat, received small portions and were not offered second helpings, while staff were sometimes too busy to give undivided support.
“People in some lounges were not encouraged to eat their food, and plates were removed still full.” from the report
Complaints not fully resolved
needs fixingPeople knew how to complain, but the home did not always respond properly or confirm findings in writing. One relative said earlier concerns had not led to action.
“We spoke with the registered manager who advised they had received complaints from the relative and had thought this was resolved.” from the report
Audits and safety checks
needs fixingSome records, fire safety checks and other environmental checks were missing or not completed regularly. The provider said these checks had been completed or reinstated after the inspection.
“We found audits and checks were not always robust or carried out regularly.” from the report
- 01How many staff will be available in each communal area at busy times, including mealtimes?
- 02How do you now check that call bells and requests for help are answered promptly?
- 03How are skin conditions, prescribed creams and other individual risks recorded and reviewed?
- 04How do you record, investigate and respond to complaints, including confirming the outcome in writing?
- 05Who now completes the fire, hot water, cleaning and other environmental safety checks, and how often are they audited?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with the previous Good rating from November 2014 replaced by the ratings in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 2017 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 Godiva Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Coventry
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.