CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Leatherland Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and safe medicines systems. Risks such as falls, pressure ulcers and moving and handling were assessed and reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, induction and supervision. People were supported with food, drinks, health appointments and specialist diets where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported family relationships and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's preferences, interests and communication needs. The home offered a range of activities and had a complaints system.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as approachable and open, and staff felt supported. However, some quality checks were not robust enough to identify the poor kitchen cleanliness.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but kitchen cleanliness checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with eight people, five relatives, one health professional and ten staff. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines processes, kind care, personalised care plans, activities and support to maintain health and family relationships.
There were some shortfalls. The kitchen was not clean and this had not been found by the home's checks. Some communal areas looked tired, and one person said they had not been involved in their care plan. The home arranged a deep clean and said it would carry out more rigorous daily checks.
Consistent staffing
The home did not use agency staff, so people received care from a consistent team. Inspectors also found there were enough staff during the visit.
“No agency staff were used. This meant people received care and support from a consistent staff team.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's backgrounds, interests, likes, dislikes and preferences about how they wanted care.
“Care plans were person centred and included information on people's background, hobbies and interests, likes and dislikes and preferences on how they wished to receive their care and support.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff supporting privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities at the home and in the local community. The home also supported contact with relatives and friends.
“A range of activities were available for people to access both within the home and the local community.” from the report
Kitchen cleanliness
needs fixingInspectors found the kitchen was poorly clean, and the home's checks had not identified this. Management arranged a deep clean and said daily checks would be more rigorous.
“the standard of cleanliness of the kitchen was poor and had not been picked up by the service's checks and audits.” from the report
Worn communal areas
minorSome areas looked tired and worn. A redecoration plan was in place, and ground-floor communal areas were being decorated during the inspection.
“Areas of the home looked tired and worn.” from the report
Involvement in care plans
minorMost evidence showed people were involved in their care plans, but one person said they had not had any input. Families should check how involvement is recorded and reviewed.
“I know the care plan is there, but I've had no input.” from the report
Some equality information missing
minorCare planning records did not include information about people's sexual orientation. The manager said this would be added and that people's diverse needs would be respected.
“care planning documentation did not contain information about people's sexual orientation, for example if they were heterosexual, gay or lesbian.” from the report
- 01What daily checks are now carried out on the kitchen, and can we see the records showing that problems are followed up?
- 02What is the timetable for completing the planned redecoration of the tired areas?
- 03How will you make sure my relative is involved in agreeing and reviewing their care plan?
- 04How do you record and respond to each person's cultural, religious, communication and personal identity needs?
- 05What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how often could they take part?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 October 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, with some pressure-care records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 8 and 14 March 2017. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, visitors, managers and care staff. They also observed care and meals, and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, kind care and care plans that reflected people's needs and preferences.
Inspectors found two areas needing attention. Records about checking pressure-relieving equipment were not always completed correctly, and a new consent form did not include space for a person's signature. The home had started corrective action, and later told inspectors that pressure-care refresher training had been completed and audits were correct.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff had regular training and competency checks.
“People had received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff responded promptly and treated people with dignity. They knew people's preferred forms of address and personal histories.
“Care was provided with kindness and compassion and people had regular contact from staff during our inspection to ensure they did not need anything and were comfortable.” from the report
Good activities and choice
People could take part in activities, trips and events, or choose to stay in their room or watch television. The home also had themed areas designed to help people living with dementia.
“People we spoke with told us they could join in with the organised activities if they wished, but some preferred to watch the television or stay in their room, which showed that people's individual choices and preferences were respected.” from the report
Responsive care planning
Care plans included people's individual needs and preferences. Staff knew how people wanted their care provided and responded when people became upset or anxious.
“The care plans we reviewed contained a variety of information about each individual person, including their physical, psychological, social and emotional needs.” from the report
Open management
The manager and deputy manager were described as approachable. The home used meetings, questionnaires and action plans to gather views and make improvements.
“People told us that the registered manager's door was 'Always open' and both they and the deputy manager were very approachable.” from the report
Pressure-care records
needs fixingDaily records about pressure-relieving equipment were not always completed, and some mattress settings were incorrect. The home arranged further training and later reported that staff had completed refresher training and audits were correct.
“Paperwork should have been completed daily to ensure people's pressure equipment was set at the correct pressure for each person's weight, but during a recent audit completed by management it was identified that documentation had not always been completed and some mattress settings were not correct.” from the report
Consent form
minorA new consent-to-care form did not have space for the person to sign. The manager said this would be discussed with new admissions and signed where possible.
“It was noted that the new form did not have space for the person to sign.” from the report
- 01How are daily pressure-care checks recorded now, and how do you check that mattress settings are right for each person?
- 02What happens if my relative is at risk of pressure sores, and who provides specialist advice or treatment?
- 03How do you record consent for care, including the person's signature where they are able to sign?
- 04How would you manage my relative's needs if they required nursing care, given that the home does not provide nursing care?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in care-plan reviews and decisions?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings reviewed and confirmed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 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 Leatherland Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 October 2012.
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 Thurrock
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 £1,210 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.