Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Lawrie Park Lodge

Goodpublished 11 March 2020, 6 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments covered areas such as mobility, refusing medicines and changes in mental health, and staff had plans to reduce these risks.
Effective?
Good
Staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People had choices about their care, food and where they ate, and staff supported access to healthcare services.
Caring?
Good
People said staff were kind, listened to them and treated them with dignity and respect. People were involved in care assessments and had private bedrooms and spaces for private conversations.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans recorded people's histories, needs, interests and preferences. Staff supported people to regain confidence, develop daily living skills, go out independently and take part in chosen activities.
Well-led?
Good
Managers used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements. Staff worked with health and social care professionals, and people and relatives were asked for their views.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2020

Lawrie Park Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one medicine error addressed through extra training.

The inspection took place without notice over three visits in December 2019 and January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living there, a relative, staff and health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.

All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safeguarding arrangements, accurate medicine records, enough staff, suitable training and systems to assess and manage risks.

People were involved in their care and were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. Inspectors found staff to be kind and respectful, and saw evidence that the home worked with health professionals.

The rating stayed Good, matching the previous inspection published in July 2017. The report did not identify any legal breaches or enforcement action.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe medicines management

    Inspectors found that staff administered medicines as prescribed and completed the medicine records accurately. Staff also had competency checks.

    “All the MARs we looked at were accurate which demonstrated people had their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful staff

    People said staff treated them well, listened to them and gave them time to discuss concerns. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity and equality were respected.

    “People confirmed that staff treated them well and provided enough time for a discussion of any concern they had.” from the report
  • Support for independence

    Staff helped people gradually rebuild confidence and daily living skills. This enabled some people to go out, attend appointments and take part in activities more independently.

    “This planned and steady change in their behaviour helped the person to regain their confidence and they were able to do things they enjoyed on their own” from the report
  • Activities and community links

    People could choose from activities at home and in the community. Staff also supported cultural interests, holidays and contact with relatives and friends.

    “People took part in activities they chose to do and enjoyed.” from the report
  • Listening to feedback

    The home gathered views through meetings, key-worker sessions and questionnaires. Inspectors saw that a request to change the menu had been acted on.

    “Feedback was gathered in a range of ways.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • A medicine error had occurred

    needs fixing

    The report records one medicine error by a staff member. The manager reviewed it, arranged extra training and used it as a learning case study, but families should ask how medicine safety is checked now.

    “There was an incident where a member of staff made a medicine error.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What extra checks are now in place following the medicine error mentioned in the report?
  2. 02How would you support my relative to maintain or regain independence in daily activities and going out?
  3. 03How would you assess and respond if my relative's mental health or mobility needs changed?
  4. 04What activities are currently available, and how are residents' interests and cultural needs included?
  5. 05How are relatives involved in care reviews, feedback and decisions about care?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, including the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 2020 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, July 2017

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led support.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 28 April and 3 May 2017. One inspector spoke with five people, the manager, the provider, the chef and two care staff. They observed the home, checked five care records and medicine records for everyone living there, and reviewed other management records.

The home supported 19 people with mental health needs. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, staffing levels were sufficient and medicines were managed safely. The home was clean and staff had access to equipment to reduce infection risks.

People were supported to consent to their care, eat and drink well, use health services and take part in activities. Staff were described as kind and respectful. Care plans reflected people's needs and choices, and inspectors found effective management and systems to review quality.

The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection on 29 October 2014 and remained Good at this inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • People felt safe

    People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and followed processes to investigate concerns and protect people.

    “People were kept safe from harm and abuse.” from the report
  • Clear risk planning

    Care records identified risks linked to people's physical and mental health. They gave staff guidance about triggers and the action to take.

    “Risk management plans continued to provide guidance for staff to manage and reduce the risks identified.” from the report
  • Choice and respectful care

    People were involved in decisions about their care. Staff respected privacy, dignity, personal routines and individual preferences.

    “People continued to be supported to make decisions regarding their care and support.” from the report
  • Activities matched people's interests

    People could choose from activities in the home and in the community. Support also included education and voluntary work.

    “People took part in activities which met their interests and needs.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01The report is from 2017. What has changed in the home since this inspection?
  2. 02How are people's mental health risks and health conditions assessed and updated now?
  3. 03How many staff are available on each shift, and how is cover arranged if someone is absent?
  4. 04How are people involved in choosing activities, holidays and community opportunities?
  5. 05How are medicines checked now, including records, supplies and any changes from health professionals?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 July 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Lawrie Park Lodge

3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Lawrie Park Lodge →

  2. July 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Lawrie Park Lodge →

  3. December 2014Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. July 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Lewisham

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. 82 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”
Marie-anne B., about Carla A.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
Claire T., about Usha V.
See live-in carers near LewishamProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.