CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Minchenden Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally personalised care and strong leadership, with the other three areas rated Good.
Inspectors made unannounced visits on 8, 12 and 13 August 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management paperwork.
People and relatives gave very positive feedback. Inspectors found that people were safe, received effective care and were treated with kindness and respect. Medicines, staffing, risk assessments, food, cleanliness and staff training were all found to be managed well.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Responsive care and leadership were rated Outstanding. Safe, Effective and Caring were rated Good. The overall rating improved from Good at the previous inspection, published in January 2017.
Personalised activities
Activities were based on people's interests and life stories. Staff supported people to continue hobbies, go on outings and fulfil long-held wishes.
“The registered manager and staff had worked extensively with people to create individual 'wish lists'.” from the report
End of life care
The home worked with palliative care services and families to understand people's wishes. Staff provided compassionate support to people and their relatives.
“The home worked in partnership with palliative care teams to provide exceptional care and support to people approaching the end of their lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff spending time with people and responding warmly to their needs. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“Respect for privacy and dignity was embedded in the culture at Minchenden Lodge.” from the report
Strong leadership
The manager was visible and approachable. Staff, people and relatives were encouraged to speak up, and quality checks were used to improve care.
“There was an exceptional approach to end of life care.” from the report
Good staffing and medicines systems
The home had a stable staff team, did not use agency staff at the time of inspection and had enough staff on duty. Inspectors found medicines were administered safely and records showed why as-needed medicines were given.
“We saw that there were enough staff on duty to meet people's physical and emotional needs at all times.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are each person's interests and personal wishes recorded and used to plan activities now?
- 02How would you support my relative if they needed palliative or end of life care?
- 03How do you check that there are enough staff when residents' needs change?
- 04How are medicines reviewed, including medicines given only when needed or hidden in food or drink?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in care reviews and decisions about their care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the overall quality and safety of the care home, including all five CQC question areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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, January 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with two record-keeping issues corrected during the visit.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 29 and 30 November 2016. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines charts, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. It was also rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, detailed care plans, kind staff and good systems for checking and improving care.
Inspectors found that two people's fluid charts did not record how much fluid they had received or needed. They also found that records for three people's covert medicines had not initially been signed by a pharmacist. Both issues were put right during the inspection.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences and emotional needs. They were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were detailed and person centred. There were comprehensive records of people's backgrounds and personal histories which staff were aware of when we talked to them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy, seek consent and respect people's routines.
“People were treated with respect and staff maintained privacy and dignity.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff had medicines training and inspectors found medicines were given on time, with no missing administration records in the charts checked.
“People's medicines were given on time and there were no omissions in recording of administration.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers used audits, surveys and reviews of accidents and incidents to identify learning and track improvements.
“There were regular audits of various aspects of the service.” from the report
Fluid records
needs fixingTwo people's fluid charts recorded that checks and drinks had taken place but did not show the amount given or required. Updated charts were put in place before the inspection ended.
“However, these charts did not document how much fluid the person had been given or should be having to maintain hydration.” from the report
Covert medicine paperwork
needs fixingRecords for three people receiving medicines without their consent had GP authorisation but were not initially signed by a pharmacist. The pharmacist authorised the documents during the inspection.
“However, covert administration had not been signed by a pharmacist.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the amount of fluid each person needs and receives?
- 02How are medicines given without a person's consent authorised and checked by the pharmacist?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how do you support people who cannot join group activities?
- 05How will relatives be involved in care planning, reviews and end of life decisions?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions, with all five ratings given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 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 Minchenden Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- October 2019Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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 Enfield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.