CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hunters Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were used safely, and there were enough safely recruited staff. Infection control arrangements and safeguarding systems were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed care plans, trained staff and access to health professionals. The home supported people's food, fluid intake, health needs and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report says staff provided kind and compassionate care, respected people's privacy and dignity, and supported equality and individual communication needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective checks and audits, clear management responsibilities and a positive, inclusive culture. Staff turnover was very low and the new registered manager had improved the service.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some redecoration and minor repairs still planned.
Inspectors visited on 1 July 2022 and reviewed care records, staff records and management records. They spoke with three people, managers and care workers. Relatives were unavailable when inspectors called.
The home supported seven people and could support up to nine. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received their medicines safely and had enough safely recruited staff. Care plans were detailed and reflected people's needs, choices and communication methods.
People were supported to follow their interests, maintain relationships and become more independent. The home had improved since earlier inspections. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The report describes caring practice, but does not give a separate Caring rating.
Personalised independence
Staff focused on what people could do and supported their goals, interests and independence.
“The service supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and administered safely, with trained staff, personalised instructions and regular checks.
“Medicines management systems and processes followed national guidance. This included the storage of medicines.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People took part in a wide range of activities and maintained links with family and the community.
“People were supported to do a wide range of things they liked doing.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed earlier problems with risk management, medicines, recruitment, care planning and management checks.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 12.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What redecoration and repair work has now been completed in the bedrooms, kitchen and dining area?
- 02How will staffing be increased if a person's needs become greater, and what happened with the applications for additional funding?
- 03How will you support my relative's particular communication method, such as pictures, symbols, body language or Makaton?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, based on their interests and goals?
- 05How are medicines, including 'when required' medicines, checked and reviewed with health professionals?
The inspection assessed the service's overall quality against the principles of right support, right care and right culture, with ratings shown for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; the report does not give a separate Caring rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 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, August 2021
Rated Requires Improvement and remains in special measures; inspectors found unsafe care planning, medicine guidance and weak management checks.
Inspectors carried out an announced focused inspection on 30 March 2021. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, recruitment files, medicines information and management records.
The home had improved from its previous Inadequate rating, but the improvements were not consistent or established. Risks were not always assessed properly, care plans lacked important personal details, and some guidance for medicines given when needed was inaccurate.
Inspectors also found problems with staff recruitment, communication records, audits and management arrangements. Staff training, infection control, food support, healthcare support and visiting arrangements were areas that worked better.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. The home remains in special measures because it had been rated Inadequate in a key question over two consecutive inspections.
Respectful support
Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity and respect. Staff listened to people and knew their needs well.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and staff listened to people.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had received training and supervision, including training about safeguarding, medicines and behaviours that may challenge. Staff understood the principles of consent better than at the previous inspection.
“Staff received appropriate training and supervision and had the knowledge and skills to provide the care people needed.” from the report
Infection control
The home had strong infection control policies and practices. Inspectors were assured about most arrangements for preventing and managing infection.
“The provider had robust Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) policies and practices in place.” from the report
Family contact and community access
The home continued to support visits during the COVID-19 pandemic and helped people keep in touch by telephone and video. People who had capacity could come and go as they pleased.
“The provider continued to allow people to have visits during the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
End of life support
Staff had end of life training and people had end of life care plans. The home worked with a hospice on this care.
“People had end of life care plans.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousOne person's records did not explain their behavioural triggers or how staff should respond. Window restrictors were not routinely checked and recorded.
“This put the person, other residents and staff at an increased risk of emotional, psychological and physical harm.” from the report
Medicine guidance
seriousSome instructions for medicines given when needed were not personal or accurate. Records did not show that required contact with a GP had taken place.
“This put the person at risk of being overmedicated because the provider could not show the correct procedure was being followed.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousOne staff file had no employment references. The provider had not completed a risk assessment or added supervision when references were difficult to obtain.
“This put people at risk of receiving a service from unsuitable staff.” from the report
Personalised care records
needs fixingSome records did not give enough detail about communication, choices and preferences. This increased the risk of care not matching people's individual needs.
“Some people's care plans contained basic information that was not detailed or person-centred enough.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits did not identify the problems found by inspectors. The registered manager did not show enough knowledge of daily operations, and responsibility given to the deputy manager concerned inspectors.
“The provider's audits, systems, processes and checks were not always effective and had not identified any of the failings found by us during this inspection.” from the report
Late medical treatment
needs fixingAfter one person fell and bruised their face, staff did not seek medical treatment until after the weekend. The provider later reviewed the incident with staff.
“There had been one incident when a person fell and bruised their face and staff did not seek medical treatment for the person until after the weekend.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make every person's risk assessment and care plan accurate, detailed and personal to them?
- 02How are medicines given when needed now checked, and how do records show that the correct procedure has been followed?
- 03Have all staff recruitment files been checked for references, DBS checks and probation reviews?
- 04How do managers now check window restrictors and identify problems with care records and medicines?
- 05What has changed since the Warning Notices and the home's continued placement in special measures?
This was an announced focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not assessed on this occasion, and previous ratings for questions not looked at were used in calculating the overall rating. 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 Hunters Lodge
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2021Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.