CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Paisley Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls, but cleaning schedules did not set out how often enhanced cleaning should happen.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 10 February 2021. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control. Inspectors looked specifically at how the home managed infection risks during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about visitor checks, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, staff training and managing outbreaks. They saw staff following infection control guidance and using PPE safely.
There was one area where inspectors were only somewhat assured. Cleaning schedules did not say how often cleaning, including cleaning frequently touched areas, should happen. The home had recognised this and planned new records.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for all five areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to follow PPE guidance and complete screening checks, including temperature checks. A separate visiting room reduced the need for visitors to walk through the main building.
“Screening questions and temperature checks were requirements for all visitors.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
The home had adapted a ground floor lounge for visits and installed a purpose-built screen to reduce infection risks.
“A ground floor lounge had been converted to allow safe visiting for relatives and friends of people.” from the report
Staff infection control
Staff had received infection control and PPE training. Inspectors observed staff following current guidance and the management team carried out regular checks.
“All staff had received training on infection control and the use of PPE.” from the report
Testing and admissions
The home had arrangements for COVID-19 testing and was following guidance for admitting new residents during the pandemic.
“The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for COVID- 19 and was following government guidance on testing.” from the report
Cleaning records
needs fixingCleaning schedules did not say how often cleaning should happen, including enhanced cleaning of frequently touched areas. The home had identified this and planned new documentation.
“Cleaning schedules were in place, however, the frequency at which cleaning, including enhanced cleaning of touch points, should take place was not outlined in the schedule.” from the report
- 01What new cleaning documentation was introduced after the inspection?
- 02How often are frequently touched areas cleaned and how is this recorded?
- 03How are staff kept up to date when infection prevention and PPE guidance changes?
- 04How are visitors screened and supported to use PPE now?
- 05How are COVID-19 tests arranged for residents and staff?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some comments about busy staffing times and activities.
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection on 30 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with six people using the service, three relatives and seven staff. They also reviewed records, medicines, staffing, care plans and how the home was managed.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, risks were assessed and people had access to healthcare.
The home was clean and maintained, with refurbishment planned. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors also found activities, personalised care plans, complaint procedures and systems for checking quality.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff knew people's needs and understood safeguarding procedures.
“People were happy with the care and support they received and told us they felt safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were organised and people received them at the right time. Staff training and competency checks were in place.
“Medicines systems were organised, and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate with people in a person-centred way and respect their privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff consistently interacted with people in a person-centred way.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People described a good range of activities, and relatives could visit. Inspectors saw chats, singing, card games and drinks tasting.
“People told us they enjoyed the activities in the home.” from the report
Checks on quality
The home used quality checks, monthly provider visits and reviews of accidents and incidents to identify improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were in place which ensured the service was monitored and any risks were identified.” from the report
Busy staffing periods
minorAlthough staffing was rated Good overall, one person said the home seemed short-staffed at dinner time. Staff also described the home as busy when colleagues were on holiday.
“Mostly enough staff just busy times, seems short at dinner time.” from the report
Agency staff experience
minorOne relative said agency staff could sometimes appear unhappy or unapproachable. This was discussed with the registered manager during the inspection.
“The staff are caring but sometimes the agency staff are miserable.” from the report
Activities and organisation
minorOne relative felt the home was not well organised and needed more activities. The manager had recently recruited a new activities coordinator.
“It's not really well organised or well run, could do with more activities.” from the report
Hairdressing visits
minorRelatives said the hairdresser could visit more often. The manager agreed to look into arranging weekly visits.
“Relatives told us they felt the hairdresser could come to the home more often.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff during busy dinner times and when staff are on holiday?
- 02How do you monitor the quality and attitude of agency staff?
- 03What activities are currently available, and how often can residents choose one-to-one or group activities?
- 04Has the hairdresser visit been increased to weekly as discussed during the inspection?
- 05What refurbishment work is planned for residents' bedrooms and other areas of the home?
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection covering all five key questions; the previous rating was Requires Improvement in 2017 and the report from an October 2018 inspection was withdrawn. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 2020 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 Paisley Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 April 2016.
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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.