CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Nelson Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including testing, cleaning, admissions and managing outbreaks. They were only somewhat assured that staff always used personal protective equipment safely because masks were not always worn.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Nelson Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control measures, although staff did not always wear face masks correctly.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2021. It checked infection prevention and control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than the full range of care.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, admissions, testing, shielding, social distancing, cleaning and outbreaks safely. The building was clean and free from clutter, and people could keep in touch with families by telephone and video calls.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured that all available personal protective equipment was used safely. Staff were not always wearing face masks at all times, and this was discussed with the registered manager.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating for the home.
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and free from clutter. Regular cleaning of frequently touched areas was taking place.
“The building was clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Visitor precautions
Visitors and contractors were asked to take a rapid test, complete a health questionnaire and wear full protective equipment.
“Any visitor or contractor entering the service were asked to undertake a lateral flow test” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Whole-home testing was in place for people living in the home, visitors and staff. Inspectors were assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Family contact
Although visits were generally not allowed at the time, people were supported to stay in touch with family and friends through telephone and video calls.
“People were supported to have regular contact with their families and friends via video calling and telephone calls.” from the report
Face-mask use
needs fixingStaff did not always wear face masks at all times. Inspectors raised this with the registered manager.
“Staff were not always wearing their face masks at all times.” from the report
- 01What action did you take after inspectors found that staff were not always wearing face masks?
- 02How do you now check that staff wear personal protective equipment correctly at all times?
- 03What are your current arrangements for visits, including visits in exceptional circumstances?
- 04How are people supported to keep in touch with family and friends if visiting is restricted?
- 05How often are people, staff and visitors tested, and what happens when someone tests positive?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some care-plan and infection-control information still to be completed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 1 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, managed risks and safe medicines practice. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and people were involved in their care and choices.
The home had activities, links with the local community and a complaints process. Some improvements were still being made, including completing an infection control statement and adding information to some care plans. This was the first inspection since the provider registered the home in March 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience and respect. People said staff knew them well and supported their choices.
“People were supported by caring, kind and respectful staff who knew each person and their individual needs well.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, including identity, references and criminal record checks, had been completed.
“The service had sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences and life histories. People and their families were involved in planning and reviewing support where appropriate.
“People and their families were involved in the development of care plans where appropriate.” from the report
Good involvement and community links
People and relatives could give feedback through meetings and questionnaires. The home also arranged activities, visitors and outings involving the local community.
“The home had strong links with the local community.” from the report
Some records needed more information
needs fixingThe provider had identified that some care plans needed further information. The report says action was underway, so families should check that this has been completed.
“For example, infection control statement to be completed and some care plans require further information to be added.” from the report
Activities were not running on the inspection day
minorNo activities were provided on the day because the activity co-ordinator was away. People described a wider range of activities available at other times.
“On the day of the inspection there were no activities provided as the activity co-ordinator was off” from the report
- 01Has the infection control statement now been completed, and what did it show?
- 02Which care plans needed more information, and how do you check that they now reflect each person's current needs?
- 03How are activities provided when the activity co-ordinator is away?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in writing and reviewing the care plan?
- 05How do you record and act on changes in my relative's health, diet, medicines or end-of-life wishes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 March 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 Nelson Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 March 2017.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 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.