CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mendip Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were protected in many ways, including through safe medicines support, suitable staffing and safeguarding systems. However, some risks were not sufficiently assessed or documented, and some repairs were needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating for this question in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating for this question in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating for this question in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality monitoring systems, positive leadership and good communication. Inspectors also identified some gaps in medicines auditing, one incomplete CQC notification and relatives not consistently receiving surveys.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Mendip Lodge is rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, well-managed care, but the Safe rating Requires Improvement because some risks and repairs were not fully addressed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 June 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with 4 people, 7 relatives and 5 staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, accident and quality records.
People and relatives generally said they felt safe and were satisfied. Staff were described as kind and approachable. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable recruitment checks and a positive atmosphere.
The Safe rating was Requires Improvement. Some risks were not fully assessed or recorded, uncovered radiators created a burn risk, and some surfaces and equipment needed repair or replacement. The overall rating was Good and the Well-led rating was Good.
Safe medicines support
People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Staff were trained and assessed as competent, and medicines records had no errors or unexplained gaps.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors observed enough staff to meet people's needs, and rotas showed safe staffing levels were maintained. People were supported by a regular group of staff who knew them well.
“We observed there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and rotas confirmed staffing levels were being maintained at the level deemed safe by the provider.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
Inspectors observed positive interactions between people and staff. People and relatives described the home as friendly, happy and relaxed.
“There was a homely and friendly atmosphere within the service, we observed positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Good leadership
People, relatives, staff and professionals gave positive feedback about management. Staff said communication was effective and they felt supported.
“Overall, I feel that the care home is well managed with the emphasis on holistic care and maintaining a homely atmosphere.” from the report
Some risks were not fully assessed
needs fixingInspectors found examples where risks had not been sufficiently assessed or recorded. One continence risk assessment needed more detail, and information about risks was not consistently recorded.
“However, we found some examples where risks had not been sufficiently assessed or documented.” from the report
Uncovered radiators
seriousSome radiators were uncovered, creating a risk of burns. The manager covered them during or after the inspection.
“We found some radiators within the service were uncovered which placed people at risk of burns.” from the report
Repairs needed
needs fixingSome surfaces and equipment needed repair or replacement so they could be cleaned properly. The manager took action after inspectors raised this.
“Most areas of the service were clean and maintained, however we identified some surfaces and equipment which were in need of repair or replacement so cleaning could take place effectively.” from the report
Medicines monitoring needed strengthening
needs fixingMedicines were stored securely, but storage temperatures were not being monitored at the time of inspection. A formal medicines audit was also introduced after the inspection.
“Medication was stored securely; however, temperatures were not being monitored where medicines were stored.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every person's risk assessment contains enough detail and is updated after changes or incidents?
- 02Have all surfaces and equipment identified for repair or replacement now been dealt with, and how do you check they can be cleaned properly?
- 03How often do you record temperatures where medicines are stored, and what happens if a temperature is outside the safe range?
- 04What has the new formal medicines audit found, and how are any problems followed up?
- 05How do you review staffing levels when people have more complex needs or staff are under pressure?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the report does not give new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 2023 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 2021
Mendip Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 February 2021. Inspectors checked how well the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found that the home followed public health guidance on visiting, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and admissions. They were assured that people and staff could access COVID-19 testing, and that infection outbreaks could be prevented or managed.
The home supported contact with families through telephone and video calls, and allowed face-to-face visits for people receiving end-of-life care. The inspection only looked at infection prevention and control, so it did not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four areas.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including the use of PPE, testing and cleaning.
“We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Clean environment
All areas inspected were clean and tidy. Extra cleaning focused on frequently touched surfaces, and staff practice was monitored.
“All areas of the home were clean and tidy.” from the report
Family contact
The home helped people stay in touch with relatives through telephone and digital communication. Face-to-face visits were possible for people receiving end-of-life care.
“Although there had been very few actual visits the staff team had helped people with making telephone calls and digital communications” from the report
Safe admissions
People admitted during the pandemic needed a negative COVID-19 result and were isolated in their bedroom for 14 days.
“The person had to have had a negative COVID-19 result before admission and was then isolated in their bedroom for a 14-day period.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are currently in place, and how have they changed since the inspection?
- 02How will you support visits and contact with relatives if there is an infection outbreak or new visiting guidance?
- 03How do you test new residents and manage isolation when they move into the home or return from hospital?
- 04How often are staff trained and checked on using PPE, hand hygiene and infection control?
- 05What is the home's most recent overall CQC rating, given that this inspection was not rated?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not assess the other four key questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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.
Every inspection of Mendip Lodge
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.