CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pinewood Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and managed, and there were enough staff to respond to people's needs. Medicines, recruitment checks, fire safety and infection control were also managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, followed healthcare advice and supported people to eat and drink enough. Staff understood consent and mental capacity requirements, although some consent records were being reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and involved them and their relatives in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and met people's needs. Activities were available, but some people said evenings could be boring or isolating and did not always feel part of the wider community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives, staff and professionals said the home was well managed. Regular audits, meetings and feedback were used to identify and address issues, while care plans and some records remained areas for development.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some areas for improvement in activities and records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 May 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also reviewed care records and other management documents.
The home was supporting 54 older people. Inspectors found that people felt safe and were supported by enough staff. Medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and staff had suitable training and support.
People were treated kindly and with respect. Staff involved people in decisions, followed their preferences and supported access to healthcare. Complaints were dealt with quickly, and managers used checks and feedback to identify and address problems.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found legal requirements were met and that people received consistently good care, although some improvements were still being developed.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risks such as falls, skin problems and weight loss were assessed and managed.
“People felt safe. One person said, "It`s always very good, I have been here for a couple of years now, I feel safe, sleep well in my bed and am not worried for myself or anyone else.” from the report
Safe medicines support
People said they received medicines on time. Staff were trained and assessed as competent, medicines were stored securely and errors were investigated.
“Staff administered medicines safely and records demonstrated this. Staff had received training in how to safely give medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff respected privacy, dignity, personal choices and existing relationships.
“People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff spoke with people in a passionate and respectful manner.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
People could see healthcare professionals when needed. Staff shared information and worked with services including GPs, district nurses, dieticians and therapists.
“They are quick to get help when needed and have all the information we need to hand.” from the report
Active management oversight
Managers used audits, meetings, surveys and reviews to monitor the home. They followed up concerns and recorded actions to improve the service.
“Processes to assess and check the quality and safety of the service were completed.” from the report
Waiting times and staffing changes
needs fixingSome people said they sometimes waited longer than necessary for care, although inspectors did not find evidence to support this. Staff were also concerned about planned changes to how staff would be deployed.
“However, people also told us at times they felt they needed to wait longer than necessary for care to be provided.” from the report
Limited evening activities
needs fixingSome people said activities were usually familiar ones and that evenings could feel boring or isolating. The managers said a new activity programme was being developed.
“After 6pm it`s like the middle of the night. I have people to phone, but for others who don't have anyone it must be boring.” from the report
Records still being improved
minorThe manager had identified care plans and consent records as areas needing further development. Some capacity records were still being brought up to date.
“The registered manager was in the process of ensuring all records were current and reflective of the persons capacity at that time.” from the report
- 01How have the planned changes to staff deployment affected staffing levels and people's waiting times?
- 02What evening activities are now available for people who may otherwise feel bored or isolated?
- 03How do you make sure each person's care plan reflects their current needs and preferences?
- 04How do you keep consent and mental capacity records up to date?
- 05How are people's views and relatives' feedback used to improve the service?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care and premises provided by the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some communication and consultation issues.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 26 July 2016. One inspector and one expert by experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, managers and health and social care professionals. They reviewed six care plans and four staff files.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines support, trained staff, personalised care and positive relationships. People were supported to make choices, stay healthy and take part in activities.
There were some less positive comments. Communication between staff was not always consistent, some staff did not always follow care plans, and some people were not consulted about a change to meal times. The new manager had recently applied to become registered with the CQC. The previous inspection in November 2013 found the service was meeting the required standards in the areas checked.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff with the right checks, skills and experience. Staffing arrangements helped people receive care from staff they knew.
“There were enough suitably experienced, skilled and qualified staff available to meet people's individual care and support needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's personalities and needs. Inspectors saw patient support that respected privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were assisted by staff to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could take part in activities such as music, crafts, quizzes and reminiscence sessions. There was also one-to-one time for people who were cared for in bed.
“We saw that for people who were looked after in bed there was 1:1 time provided where people could enjoy hand massage and nail painting.” from the report
Quality checks
The management team used audits and checks to monitor care and safety. The report says identified actions were followed up and recorded when completed.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place that monitored people's care.” from the report
Inconsistent communication
needs fixingOne relative said communication between staff was sometimes inconsistent. The report says this was not considered to place anyone in danger, but it is worth asking how information is handed over.
“communication between staff is hit and miss at times and I think that could be improved, I don't think for a minute anyone is in danger here.” from the report
Care plans not always followed
needs fixingOne relative said most carers followed the care plan, but not all. Ask how the home checks that every staff member follows each person's agreed care.
“Most carers follow the care plan though not all.” from the report
Meal change not fully discussed
minorSome people said they were not consulted before the main meal was moved to the end of the day. Their comments were passed to the manager.
“I wasn't consulted or asked about the change in meals, one day they just changed over.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure all staff follow each person's care plan?
- 02How do staff share important information at handover, and how do you check communication is consistent?
- 03What changes were made after residents raised concerns about the timing of the main meal?
- 04How are residents and relatives consulted before changes are made to meals or daily routines?
- 05Has the manager's application to become registered with the CQC been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality areas and reviewing six care plans and four staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 2016 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 Pinewood Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.