CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Patchett Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, appropriate risk assessments, safe equipment and suitable recruitment checks. Medicines systems were generally organised, but one staff member did not fully follow the provider's safe administration process.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, ongoing training and supervision. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and supportive. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and offered choices in daily life.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and were reviewed monthly. Some people wanted more activities, and the home was replacing its activities coordinator while staff covered activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was visible and approachable. Audits, an action plan and feedback from people were used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, April 2019
OSJCT Patchett Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some issues around medicines and activities.
Inspectors visited without notice on 16 January 2019. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines information and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable care plans, safe risk management and good support with health, food and drink.
The home had improved since its previous Requires Improvement rating in 2017. Inspectors found that management had acted on earlier concerns, including staffing and medicines. They did identify that one staff member had not fully followed medicines procedures, and some people wanted more activities.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing had improved since the previous inspection. People did not have to wait long for care or for call bells to be answered.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs without them having to wait for care.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff noticing people's needs, offering help and respecting privacy, dignity and choice.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Management improvements
The provider and manager had acted on concerns from the previous inspection. Quality checks and an action plan were being used to monitor further improvements.
“The registered manager had taken effective action to improve the quality of care people received following our last inspection.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
People received choices of food and regular drinks. Staff monitored weight and food and fluid intake, and involved healthcare professionals when needed.
“People were supported to access healthcare advice and support as needed to maintain their health.” from the report
Medicines procedure
seriousInspectors saw that a staff member did not fully follow the provider's medicines administration process. The manager responded by discussing the issue and arranging further training.
“We saw that the member of staff administering medicines did not fully follow the provider's processes for the safe administration.” from the report
Activities
needs fixingSome people said they wanted more activities, including chair exercises. The home was replacing its activities coordinator and staff were covering activities at the time.
“Some people told us that they would like more activities.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure every staff member follows the medicines administration process?
- 02What medicines training and observations have staff completed since the inspection?
- 03What activities are currently available, and how are they matched to each resident's interests and abilities?
- 04How do you review each person's care plan and involve the person or their relatives?
- 05How do you use residents' meetings and surveys to make changes to the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care home, its premises and care, and rated all five CQC areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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, September 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but weaknesses in medicines, staff checks, training, hydration and quality monitoring.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, checked care records and reviewed staffing, training, medicines and quality checks.
The home was caring and responsive. People were treated kindly, consulted about their care and offered activities. Their privacy was respected, complaints arrangements were in place and people received help to access healthcare.
However, the home was not consistently safe, effective or well-led. Some staff background checks were incomplete. Medicine records were not always accurate. Staff training and support for people at risk of not drinking enough needed improvement. Quality checks had not always led to problems being fixed quickly.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with compassion and respect. Staff supported privacy and took time to talk with people.
“We saw that people were treated with compassion, kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
People were asked about the care they wanted, and care plans reflected their wishes. Staff supported people to make choices, including people living with dementia.
“People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive and were given the practical assistance they needed.” from the report
Activities and complaints
People were offered a range of activities and trips. They and their relatives felt able to raise concerns, with a process in place to resolve complaints.
“There was an activities coordinator and records showed that people were being offered the opportunity to enjoy taking part in a range of social events.” from the report
Healthcare support
People received help to see doctors and other healthcare professionals when needed. Inspectors also found that the required applications had been made so people received lawful care.
“People said and records confirmed that they received all of the help they needed to see their doctor and healthcare professionals including dentists and opticians.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousOn four recent occasions, staff had not clearly recorded medicines that had been given. This increased the risk that people would not receive the full benefit of their medicines.
“Although medicines were ordered, stored and disposed of correctly, records did not always show that medicines had been given at the right times.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousFull employment histories had not always been obtained for two new care staff, and one required check had not been completed. This limited the home’s ability to confirm their suitability.
“Full background checks had not always been completed before new staff were employed.” from the report
Support with drinking
seriousRecords about drinks were sometimes incomplete or made on the wrong form. Staff did not know the daily targets or how to recognise dehydration, and action was not taken when targets were missed.
“Although the people concerned told us that care staff did in practice encourage them to drink enough, shortfalls in the arrangements used by the service had increased the risk that they would not consistently receive all of the assistance they needed to have enough hydration to promote their good health.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingSome staff had not completed all the refresher training the home considered necessary. Inspectors said this increased the risk that staff would not have all the skills needed for safe care.
“Although we found that in practice care staff knew how to care for people in the right way shortfalls in the provision of training increased the risk that care staff would have all of the competencies they needed to provide safe care.” from the report
Quality checks and repairs
needs fixingAudits had not always led to problems being fixed quickly. Inspectors found chipped paintwork, a damaged and poorly repaired toilet and disused electrical wires protruding from a ceiling.
“However, we noted that these quality checks had not always resulted in issues quickly being put right leading to the persistence of the problems we have described earlier in our report.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure every new staff member has full employment and background checks before starting?
- 02How do you now check that every medicine dose is recorded correctly and at the right time?
- 03How are people at risk of not drinking enough supported, and how do you respond when their daily target is missed?
- 04Which staff training was incomplete at the inspection, and has it now been completed and checked?
- 05Have the chipped paintwork, damaged toilet and exposed electrical wires been repaired?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five key questions, using observations, discussions, records and quality checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 September 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 OSJCT Patchett Lodge
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 2010.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.