CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Kallar Lodge Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were generally managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient, and infection control measures were in place. They noted that no trained medicines staff were working at night.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found regular audits, a clear management structure, staff support and systems for listening to people and relatives. The previous governance concerns had been addressed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safer systems and better oversight, with no current breaches, but no trained medicines staff were working at night.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 January 2021. One inspector spoke with one person, five staff members and four relatives. The inspector also reviewed medicine records, staff files, risk assessments and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were generally managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and infection control measures were in place.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with breaches involving safe care and treatment and good governance. Inspectors found that the required improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
This inspection only looked closely at Safe and Well-led. The other question ratings came from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Risk management
Risk assessments covered health conditions, falls, skin care and nutrition. They had been reviewed and were checked monthly.
“Risk assessments were in place for people which covered health conditions, along with other risks people faced, including falling, skin integrity and nutrition.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment checks included references, identification and criminal record checks.
“There were enough staff working at the service to meet people's needs in a safe way.” from the report
Infection control
The inspector was assured that the home had measures for visitors, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and managing possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Management oversight
The home had regular audits of medicines, risk assessments, care plans and infection control. There was also a monthly management visit.
“Medicines audits were in place and medicine records were checked regularly.” from the report
Positive culture
Staff described the culture as open and positive. Relatives said the atmosphere was nice and staff appeared genuinely kind.
“A relative said, "The atmosphere is nice and they (staff) seem genuinely kind.” from the report
Night-time medicines cover
needs fixingNo trained medicines staff were working at night. If someone needed an as-required medicine, staff would need to call a trained member of staff to come in.
“However, there were no such trained staff working during the night.” from the report
- 01If my relative needs an as-required medicine at night, who will be able to give it and how quickly?
- 02How will the home make sure trained medicines staff are available overnight?
- 03How often will my relative's risk assessments be reviewed and updated after a change in their health?
- 04What checks are carried out through the home's medicine, care plan and infection control audits?
- 05What improvements have been kept in place since the previous inspection's concerns about medicines and risk assessments?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but medicines, risk assessments and quality checks were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines, staff records and the home's monitoring systems.
People were generally treated kindly and with respect. Inspectors found good support with food, healthcare, activities, personal choices and care planning. People said they felt safe and there were enough staff to meet their needs.
However, some important safety checks were not good enough. Risk assessments were missing or too general for some people. Medicines records had unexplained gaps, controlled drugs were not checked regularly, and some 'as required' medicines lacked guidance.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home breached two regulations, and the provider was asked to send CQC an action plan.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors that staff treated them with dignity and knew their preferences. Staff supported privacy and encouraged people to do what they could for themselves.
“Staff know me as a person, they know what I like and what I do not like.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, communication needs, mobility, personal care and life history. People and relatives were involved in creating and reviewing them.
“Care plans were in place which set out how to support people in a personalised manner and were of a good standard.” from the report
Activities and choice
People had choices about food and access to activities such as bingo, quizzes, games and visiting entertainers. Inspectors saw people taking part in activities.
“There was an activities timetable and on the day of inspection we witnessed bingo and a quiz taking place.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were supported to see healthcare professionals, and a GP visited weekly. A visiting professional said staff followed care guidance and made referrals promptly.
“They told us staff were good at following any guidance they were given in relation to people's care” from the report
Risk assessments were incomplete
seriousSome people did not have risk assessments for all the risks they faced, including bedrails and diabetes. The assessments that were produced were general rather than tailored to each person.
“The risks people faced had not been assessed to a satisfactory standard.” from the report
Medicines checks were not reliable
seriousInspectors found 33 unexplained gaps in seven people's older medicine records. Controlled drugs had not been checked since February 2019, and two people lacked guidance for 'as required' medicines.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Quality systems missed problems
needs fixingThe home's own checks did not identify or correct the problems with risk assessments and medicines. It had also not acted on a pharmacist's earlier audit that found similar medicine recording concerns.
“Although systems were in place to monitor and assess the performance of the service, these were not always effective.” from the report
No registered manager in post
needs fixingThe previous registered manager had left in March 2019. An acting manager was running the home and was applying to register with CQC.
“At the time of inspection, the service did not have a registered manager in place.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure every resident has a personalised risk assessment for risks such as diabetes, falls and bedrails?
- 02How are medicine administration records checked now, and how are missing signatures investigated?
- 03How often are controlled drugs checked, and who reviews the records?
- 04What guidance is available for each resident's 'as required' medicine?
- 05Is there now a registered manager, and how are quality and safety concerns monitored?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection that considered all five CQC questions, including care, safety, staffing, medicines, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 2019 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 Kallar Lodge Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Kallar Lodge Residential Care Home →
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Kallar Lodge Residential Care Home →
- December 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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 Barking and Dagenham
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. 79 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.