CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Loganberry Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but staffing, food, the environment and management checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 6 and 14 July 2022, spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, watched care, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and audits.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People were protected from abuse, medicines were given safely, recruitment checks were completed and care plans and risk assessments were in place. However, inspectors found that staff could be overstretched and that some infection control issues had not been found by the home's own checks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Concerns included the quality and serving of food, limited dining space, the broken garden fence, inconsistent care records and management systems that had not always identified or fixed problems. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2019 to Requires Improvement.
Kind and caring staff
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the staff. Inspectors observed that staff worked hard to meet people's needs.
“One person told us, "The staff are really kind and work really hard.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found no gaps or omissions in the medicines records they checked. Stock also matched the records.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Consent and best-interest decisions
People's capacity was assessed for specific decisions. Relatives and other relevant people were involved in best-interest decisions when appropriate.
“Records showed people's capacity was assessed in a decision specific way, and relevant people such as relatives were involved in making best interests decisions about their care as appropriate.” from the report
Positive communication
Relatives and staff said the management team was approachable and kept people informed. The home also worked with health and social care professionals.
“People, their relatives and staff found the management team visible, supportive and approachable.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingInspectors found that staffing levels and deployment did not always allow enough time for meaningful interaction or support at mealtimes. A recommendation was made to review this.
“However, observations and feedback showed more staff were required at certain points in the day, to consistently provide meaningful engagement and to support with mealtimes.” from the report
Food and mealtimes
needs fixingPeople and relatives gave mixed feedback about the food. Some meals were left in a hot trolley for a long time, and some people ate alternatives instead of the main meal.
“We observed some people eating toast, bread and butter or cereal instead of their main meal as a result.” from the report
Communal space and garden access
needs fixingThere were not enough dining places for everyone who wanted to eat at a table. The damaged garden fence also meant some people could not access the garden independently.
“At the time of inspection, people were unable to access the garden area independently because the fence had blown down in February and had not yet been replaced.” from the report
Management checks did not always work
needs fixingThe home's audits and reviews had not always identified or resolved known problems. Inspectors found that issues with staffing, food, incidents and infection control needed stronger follow-up.
“Audits did not always proactively identify and act upon areas for improvement or monitor outcomes.” from the report
- 01How many staff will be available on each unit at mealtimes and during other busy periods?
- 02What changes have been made to improve the variety, choice, temperature and serving of meals?
- 03Has the garden fence been replaced, and can people now access the garden safely and independently where appropriate?
- 04What actions are in the service improvement plan, and how is the home checking that changes are lasting?
- 05If the person has a learning disability, how will their individual needs be supported in this large care setting?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and the overall rating used ratings from the previous inspection for questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 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 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and clear improvements, but some records and maintenance still needed attention.
Inspectors visited on 31 January and 4 February 2019 without giving notice. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were generally safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who knew them well. Care plans were detailed, medicines were managed safely and people had access to activities and healthcare.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in February 2018. Inspectors still found some issues, including inconsistent bowel monitoring, limited detail in some 'when needed' medicine plans, some low fluid intake, areas needing a deep clean and worn furnishings.
Personalised care
Care plans were detailed and staff knew people's preferences, histories and support needs. Relatives said they were kept informed about changes in wellbeing.
“Care plans were detailed and set out people's needs, preferences and how staff should support them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and kindly. People were helped to make choices and maintain their independence.
“Some staff are very good, I get on with them all. They tell me why they are here, help me get out of my chair, they are gentle and don't rush me.” from the report
Improved safety
Risk assessments, safety checks and equipment helped reduce risks such as falls, skin damage and unsafe moving and handling. This was an improvement from the previous inspection.
“Risks such as those associated with skin integrity and mobility were assessed and managed.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People said they enjoyed the food and were offered choices and support with eating. The home worked with healthcare professionals when people needed extra help.
“Meals were nicely presented and looked appetising and people told us they enjoyed the food.” from the report
Management and improvement
The home had audits, meetings and an improvement plan. Inspectors found that management had worked with outside services to improve quality and safety.
“There was a framework to monitor performance and drive improvement.” from the report
Bowel monitoring
seriousBowel records were not always completed consistently. Inspectors said this placed some people at risk of constipation and related complications.
“However, bowel monitoring was not always consistently monitored which placed some people at risk of constipation and complications arising from this.” from the report
Medicine plans
needs fixingSome plans for medicines taken when needed did not contain enough detail to show whether the medicine was working. One medicine checked did not match its record.
“However, some of these plans would benefit from more detail to enable staff to monitor if they were effective.” from the report
Food and fluid intake
needs fixingSome people were not always drinking enough. The manager said this was known and was being discussed with healthcare colleagues.
“However, we noted that some people were not always meeting their fluid intake.” from the report
Cleanliness and wear
minorA small number of areas needed a deep clean, and some furnishings showed wear and tear. The deep cleaning was being addressed during the inspection and refurbishment was ongoing.
“The service was generally clean, but a small number of areas needed a deep clean.” from the report
Staff references
needs fixingChecks included identity, criminal record checks and references, but references were not always consistently requested from previous care providers. The manager said this was immediately addressed.
“However references were not always being consistently requested from previous care providers.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure bowel monitoring records are completed consistently and acted on promptly?
- 02What extra information is now included in plans for medicines taken when needed?
- 03How do you monitor people's fluid intake, and what support is provided when someone is not drinking enough?
- 04Have the areas needing a deep clean and the worn furnishings now been dealt with?
- 05Has the activities team recruited the additional staff mentioned in the report?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, following a previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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 Loganberry Lodge
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.