CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Marple Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that safeguarding, risk assessments, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were managed safely. People said they felt safe and received prompt support.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission and staff received induction and training. People had support with food, healthcare, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's personalities, preferences and care needs, and involved them in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and reflected people's current needs and choices. People were supported with family contact, activities, communication and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The management structure was leading the service effectively, but there was no registered manager and the assistant manager had not started the registration process. The provider was also updating its provider-level audit process.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 and 4 August 2021. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, infection control and staffing were managed safely. People were treated with kindness and respect, and their care reflected their needs, choices and interests.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. There was no registered manager, and the assistant manager had not yet started the registration process. The provider was also updating its audit system. The overall rating remained Good.
Compared with the previous inspection, Responsive improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The other three question ratings remained Good.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found clear risk guidance, suitable staffing and safe medicines systems. Controlled medicines were stored and handled safely.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and neglect by staff who had received training and understood what actions to take to protect people.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and compassionate. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity and choices.
“People enjoyed spending time with staff, relaxing and chatting together.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, routines, likes and dislikes. Staff followed these plans and updated them when people's needs changed.
“The plans showed detailed care and needs, which the staff followed to support the person as expected.” from the report
Improved responsiveness
The Responsive rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication and end of life care.
“At this inspection this key question has now improved to good.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was following infection control arrangements, including the use of protective equipment, testing and visits.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. The assistant manager had not started the registration process, which limited the Well-led rating.
“The assistant manager had not yet started the process to register at Marple Lodge which placed a limiter on the rating of the well-led domain.” from the report
Management audits being updated
minorThe provider was still updating its provider-level audit process so it could measure care against good practice guidance.
“The provider was in the process of updating their provider level audit process ensure the service could measure and review the delivery of care against good practice guidance.” from the report
- 01Has the assistant manager now started or completed the process to register as manager?
- 02What changes have been made to the provider-level audit process since the inspection?
- 03What activities are currently available, and how are they matched to my relative's interests and hobbies?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan and choices?
- 05How are visits, testing and infection control managed now?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; the previous ratings were also compared. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 August 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, July 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but records of care planning involvement and activities needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 12 and 13 June 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also looked at care files, medicines records, staff files, policies, audits and the building.
The home was found to be safe, effective, caring and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, clean premises and kind interactions. People's care plans were detailed and personalised.
The responsive rating was Requires Improvement. The home did not consistently record people's or their legal representative's involvement in care planning and reviews. Records of activities had also not always been completed, so inspectors could not confirm that activities were offered every day.
The overall rating was Good. This was an improvement from the previous inspection in November 2016, when the home was rated Requires Improvement overall and in four areas. At this inspection, the home was meeting all regulatory requirements, although inspectors made two recommendations.
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors saw positive relationships and staff supporting people's choices and independence.
“Staff were seen to be caring and treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised care information
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, preferences, routines and wishes. This helped staff understand how each person wanted to be supported.
“The care plans themselves were concise yet clearly detailed the care and support each person wanted to receive.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had induction, ongoing training, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found that previous shortfalls in training records and support had been addressed.
“Staff reported sufficient and regular training and supervision was provided to enable them to carry out their roles successfully.” from the report
Care planning involvement was not recorded
needs fixingPeople and relatives said they could not recall being involved in care planning or reviews. The care files did not show that people or their legal representatives had read or agreed to the plans.
“In each of the nine care files we viewed, we found no records to indicate people or their legal representative, had read the care plans” from the report
Activity records had gaps
minorThe home offered a range of activities, but records before the end of May 2018 were not completed consistently. There was no daily activity schedule on display.
“This meant it was not possible to confirm activities had been offered each day.” from the report
- 01How will you involve my relative or their legal representative in writing and reviewing the care plan?
- 02How will you record that care plans have been discussed, read and agreed?
- 03What activities are planned each day, and how will you record who took part?
- 04What changes have you made since the inspection to address the two recommendations?
- 05How will you keep us informed about changes in care or future care plan reviews?
This was an inspection of the overall service, including all five key questions, the premises and care provided, and it checked improvements identified at the November 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 July 2018 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 Marple Lodge Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- August 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 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.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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 Stockport
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 £1,260 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.