CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ossis Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by safeguarding procedures, risk management, suitable staffing, safe recruitment and infection control arrangements. Inspectors noted missing or unavailable fire safety records and one medicine incident, but immediate action was taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received mandatory and specialist training and regular supervision. People’s food, drink and healthcare needs were met, and staff worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood people’s communication needs and supported them to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s individual needs, strengths and preferences. The home adapted activities during the pandemic and investigated complaints openly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality checks, a positive person-centred culture and good teamwork. The manager was formally registered with CQC after the inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some safety records needed immediate attention.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered in 2019. The inspection was unannounced and took place on 05 May 2021 and 07 May 2021. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines support, good healthcare arrangements and care that respected people’s choices, dignity and independence.
There were some issues during the inspection. The fire risk assessment could not initially be located, only three of five emergency evacuation plans were readily available, pandemic risk assessments were generic, and one medicine incident had occurred. Immediate action was taken on the missing documents and medicine incident, with no harm reported.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. Relatives said they were very happy with the care.
“People received care that was kind and caring. There was a good rapport and relationship between people using the service and staff who supported them.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff had training for people’s specific needs, including diabetes, epilepsy and PEG support. They also received regular supervision.
“Staff were supported to complete both mandatory and specialist training relating to the needs of people being currently supported.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people’s individual needs, strengths and preferences. Staff knew how each person wanted to be supported.
“Care plans covered all aspects of a person's individual care and support needs, focussing on the care and support to be delivered by staff, the person's strengths, what was important to them and their personal preferences.” from the report
Good quality oversight
The home used internal and external audits and had an action plan to address identified shortfalls.
“Effective arrangements were in place to assess and monitor the service through its internal auditing systems.” from the report
Fire safety records
seriousThe fire risk assessment could not initially be found, and only three of five personal emergency evacuation plans were readily available. The manager took immediate steps to address this and later confirmed the fire assessment had been completed externally.
“The service's fire risk assessment could not be located and only three out of five Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans [PEEP] were readily available.” from the report
Pandemic risk assessments
needs fixingThe arrangements for assessing pandemic risks for staff were generic rather than tailored to individuals.
“However, these were generic and not individualised.” from the report
One medicine incident
needs fixingMedicine records showed one incident. The manager sought medical advice and took action to prevent it happening again. Inspectors reported that no harm occurred.
“The incident was discussed with the manager and immediate action was taken to seek medical advice to prevent further occurrence in the future.” from the report
- 01Where are the current fire risk assessment and all five personal emergency evacuation plans kept, and when were they last reviewed?
- 02How have pandemic risks been assessed for each person and each staff member?
- 03What happened in the medicine incident, and what changes were made afterwards?
- 04How will people and their representatives be asked for feedback about the service?
- 05How does the home make sure activities and community access match each person’s choices and interests?
This was the home’s first comprehensive inspection, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 June 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 Ossis Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 June 2019.
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
52 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £1,200 a week. 45 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.