CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Haslingden Hall and the Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were found to be safe, although one risk assessment and one person's room needed attention during the visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in, and staff received training and supervision. People were supported with food, drink and healthcare, although staff needed more knowledge about the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, patience and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to maintain their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's current needs and were reviewed regularly. People had access to activities, visitors and a complaints process, and staff responded to changing needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had improved audits, action plans and checks on records. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views, and feedback was used to make improvements.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Haslingden Hall and the Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with a few records and staff knowledge issues addressed during the visit.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 7 and 8 June 2022. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, kind interactions, personalised care and activities for people to enjoy.
The home had improved since earlier focused inspections. Safe and Well-led had previously been rated Requires Improvement. The provider had strengthened risk checks, safeguarding arrangements, audits and record keeping, so the earlier legal breaches were no longer in place.
Inspectors found a small number of issues during the visit. One risk assessment needed updating, one room needed cleaning, and some staff needed more knowledge about safeguarding reporting and the Mental Capacity Act. These matters were addressed or being acted on during the inspection.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and improved recruitment checks.
“People told us they felt safe living in the home, and they were happy with the service provided.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and interacted with them warmly. Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“Staff interacted with people in a warm and friendly manner and people were comfortable in the presence of staff who were supporting them.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans reflected people's preferences and changing needs. People were offered a range of activities and were supported to stay in touch with visitors and the community.
“People received person-centred care and support in a way that was flexible and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had strengthened its systems for monitoring quality and keeping records complete. Managers used action plans to follow up shortfalls.
“The management team carried out a number of audits and checks covering all aspects of the service.” from the report
Some staff safeguarding knowledge
needs fixingStaff had completed safeguarding training but were unsure about reporting procedures outside their organisation. The manager took immediate action to refresh their knowledge.
“Staff confirmed they had completed training; however, they were unsure on the safeguarding reporting procedures outside their own organisation.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act knowledge
needs fixingStaff had a basic understanding of the rules about supporting people who may lack capacity to make decisions. The manager agreed to provide more information.
“The staff had completed training and had a basic understanding of the principles of the MCA.” from the report
A risk assessment needed updating
minorInspectors found one person's risk assessment was not up to date. The home corrected this during the inspection.
“We noted one person's risk assessment required updating, this issue was addressed during the inspection.” from the report
One room needed cleaning
minorThe home was generally clean and infection controls were found to be suitable, but one person's room needed cleaning. This was dealt with immediately.
“However, we noted one person's room required cleaning, this issue was addressed immediately during the inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every risk assessment is current and reflects changes in a person's needs?
- 02What safeguarding reporting training have staff received since the inspection, including reporting outside the organisation?
- 03How have you improved staff understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and least restrictive care?
- 04Has the planned electronic care planning system been introduced, and how do you check that records remain accurate?
- 05What progress has been made with the refurbishment and the planned dementia-related adaptations?
This was the first comprehensive inspection and gave an overall rating; earlier inspections on 19 November 2020 and 13 January 2022 were focused follow-ups. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 2022 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found unsafe risk management, missed safeguarding referrals and weak oversight, so the home Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 13 and 14 January 2022. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led after concerns about care, infection control, records and management. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional, observed care, toured the home and checked records.
The home had enough staff overall and people described staff as caring and respectful. Medicines were generally managed safely, infection control arrangements were suitable and PPE was used properly. However, some risks were not assessed or managed properly, including risks linked to skin, movement, falls, food and fluids.
Three safeguarding incidents from October 2021 had not been referred to the local authority in time. Care plans, monitoring charts and handover records were incomplete, and management action plans had not always been followed through. The ratings for Safe and Well-led both fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
The overall service was inspected but not rated because this was a focused inspection. The home sent an action plan after the visit, and the CQC said it would monitor progress and return to check improvements.
Caring staff
People and relatives were mostly positive about the staff. Inspectors observed caring interactions during the visit.
“Some staff are really fabulous and do everything they can to help” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff were deployed to meet people's needs, although staff on the ground floor were not always well organised.
“We observed there were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Infection control
Staff used PPE appropriately, supplies were plentiful and the home followed current infection prevention guidance.
“We were assured the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines processes
Inspectors found that medicines were generally managed safely and staff had suitable training. There were still recording gaps for prescribed creams.
“The registered manager and staff followed safe processes to ensure people's medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Risks were not consistently managed
seriousSome people's risks were not fully assessed or reflected in their care plans. Inspectors found gaps involving skin care, mobility, falls, food and fluids, and emergency evacuation.
“People were at risk from inconsistent and unsafe care.” from the report
Safeguarding incidents were not reported promptly
seriousThree incidents from October 2021 had not been referred to the local authority. This meant the home could not identify lessons or check that actions were effective at the time.
“We found three incidents which occurred in October 2021 that had not been referred to the local authority.” from the report
Records and improvement plans were incomplete
seriousCare plans, daily monitoring charts and food and fluid records were not always complete or current. Management had identified some problems, but action plans were not consistently completed and checked.
“The provider had failed to operate effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Communication could be better
needs fixingRelatives said they often had to contact the home for updates. Handover records were not always completed, and there were no regular meetings with visiting healthcare professionals at the time of the inspection.
“They added they had to contact the home to enquire about their family member's welfare rather than staff at the home updating them.” from the report
Ground-floor organisation
needs fixingStaff were not well organised on the ground floor and one care task was missed on the first day of the inspection. There was also no keyworker system to give staff clear oversight of particular people.
“This resulted in a care task being missed on the first day of the inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to risk assessments and care plans for skin, mobility, falls, nutrition, hydration and emergency evacuation?
- 02How do you now make sure all safeguarding incidents are reported promptly to the local authority?
- 03How are food and fluid charts, daily records and handover records checked for completeness and accuracy?
- 04What has changed on the ground floor to prevent care tasks being missed and to give staff clear responsibility for each person?
- 05How will you keep relatives and visiting healthcare professionals informed about people's care and changing needs?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and had no ratings given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 2022 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 Haslingden Hall and the Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Haslingden Hall and the Lodge →
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Haslingden Hall and the Lodge →
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 November 2019.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.