CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lucy Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, risks were reviewed, and there were enough safely recruited staff. Inspectors found that monitoring of medicines given when needed was initially incomplete, but this was corrected immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff had suitable skills, training and support. People received food suited to their preferences and were supported to access healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their daily lives and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and regularly reviewed. People were supported with interests, relationships, communication needs and avoiding social isolation.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, supportive management and systems that monitored quality and drove improvements. The previous failure to submit all required notifications had been addressed.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Lucy Lodge was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with medicines monitoring corrected during the inspection.
The CQC carried out an unannounced planned inspection on 15 and 20 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people, managers, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment checks, training records and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, appropriate risk management, kind staff and care that reflected people's needs and choices.
There was one medicines shortfall. The effectiveness of medicines given when needed was not being monitored, but the manager corrected this immediately and put suitable records in place. Staff competency checks were also completed after the inspection.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in March 2019, and there had been a breach about missed notifications to the CQC. Inspectors found improvements and said the provider was no longer in breach.
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff positively, and inspectors saw warm, natural relationships. Staff understood people's personalities and diverse needs.
“People's needs were met by caring, patient and considerate staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday decisions, take positive risks and work towards greater independence.
“People were empowered to make their own decisions.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences, behaviour and wellbeing. Staff supported people to maintain relationships and pursue interests.
“The service was responsive to people's needs. Care plans were person-centred and were reviewed on a regular basis.” from the report
Improved leadership
Management systems had improved since the previous inspection. Staff felt supported, and quality checks were used to make further improvements.
“Governance systems drove improvements in the quality of the service.” from the report
Medicines given when needed
needs fixingInspectors found that the effectiveness of medicines given when needed was not being monitored. The manager corrected this immediately and put appropriate records in place, but families should ask how this is checked now.
“The effectiveness of 'as and when' required medication was not being monitored.” from the report
- 01How do you now monitor whether medicines given when needed are effective?
- 02How are staff assessed as competent to support people with their medicines?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed and updated?
- 04How are people supported to maintain family contact, pursue interests and avoid social isolation?
- 05How do people, relatives and staff give feedback, and what changes have resulted from it?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, medicines, staffing, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found good care in four areas, but the home had not submitted two required notifications to the CQC.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 February 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints, incidents, policies and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, detailed care plans, suitable training and kind relationships. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement because well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The registered manager had not submitted two required notifications about applications to deprive a person of their liberty. This was a breach of Regulation 18.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors saw enough staff on duty and found that medicines were administered safely and recorded as prescribed.
“Medicines were managed and administered safely. Records confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring. Staff knew people's individual needs and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's choices, preferences, histories and goals. People could take part in activities, go out where safe and follow their faith.
“People were supported to enjoy their interests, hobbies and attend a variety of organised events, trips out and work experiences.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff received induction, ongoing training and supervision. Inspectors found that staff applied their learning and achieved good outcomes for people.
“People received care and support from skilled and knowledgeable staff.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home used incident records, short-term plans and falls reviews to reduce further risks and improve people's care.
“A 72-hour short term personal plan was routinely implemented to keep people safe from further incidents such as when they had fallen.” from the report
Required notifications were missed
seriousThe registered manager had not told the CQC about the outcomes of two applications to deprive a person of their liberty. The report says this was a breach of Regulation 18.
“The registered manager had failed to ensure they had submitted all notifications as they are legally required to do” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure all required CQC notifications are submitted on time?
- 02How do managers check that applications to deprive a person of their liberty and their outcomes are properly recorded and notified?
- 03What quality checks are now used to prevent a repeat of the Regulation 18 breach?
- 04How are people involved in reviewing their care plans and checking that their goals are being met?
- 05How does the home make sure staffing levels remain sufficient for people's individual support needs?
This unannounced inspection looked at the care home premises and personal care, and assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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.
Every inspection of Lucy Lodge
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 February 2018.
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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.