CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Poplar Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, managed risks, followed safe recruitment and medicines procedures, and used infection control measures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report says staff provided kind and compassionate care, but no current rating was given here.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management and governance systems had improved and were effective. The provider was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and improved management since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with five people and four relatives, and spoke with six staff. They also reviewed care records, staff files, medicines arrangements, infection control and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were managed, staffing and recruitment were safe, medicines were handled safely, and infection controls were in place. People were supported to make choices and keep as much independence as possible.
Inspectors found kind and compassionate care. Staff knew people well, supported their interests and helped them take part in activities. Management systems had improved since the last inspection, and the previous breach of Regulation 17 had been resolved.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement, published in October 2019, to Good. The inspection did not assess all five areas, so some ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff knew people well and understood how to protect them from abuse.
“People said they felt safe at Poplar Lodge.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make decisions, manage risks and take part in activities. They aimed to use the least restrictive approach.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff understood people's individual needs and protected their privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Improved management
Governance systems were stronger than at the previous inspection. The registered manager had good oversight and staff understood their roles.
“Governance processes had improved and were now effective and helped to hold staff to account” from the report
Learning from incidents
Staff reported and investigated incidents, and managers shared lessons learned. This addressed a recommendation from the previous inspection.
“Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately and managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you review my relative's care and support as their needs or wishes change?
- 02How will my relative be involved in decisions about risks, medicines and their daily activities?
- 03How do you check that medicines are given, recorded and stored safely for each person?
- 04What happens after an incident, and how will you tell us about any lessons or changes?
- 05What checks do managers now carry out to make sure care remains safe and good quality?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 December 2022 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, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but quality checks were not effective and one regulation was still breached.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 and 23 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with four people, seven staff and other professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
People were supported by kind staff who understood their preferences. Inspectors found good care in the effective, caring and responsive areas. People had support with food, health appointments, activities, communication and independence.
Safety and leadership were both rated Requires Improvement. The provider's checks did not reliably identify problems or show that lessons were being learned. The home remained in breach of Regulation 17 on good governance.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. This was an improvement from the previous inspection, but the provider still needed to improve its oversight and had also failed to notify CQC about events at the home.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found a relaxed atmosphere and staff who treated people with kindness, dignity and respect.
“Staff provided support which was kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans had been updated and staff understood people's preferences, choices and support needs.
“People received personalised care.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities, develop skills and become more independent.
“People were engaged in a variety of activities throughout the day to avoid isolation.” from the report
Staffing and medicines
There were enough staff on duty and staff were assessed as competent to administer medicines safely.
“There were sufficient staff on duty.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider did not have effective systems to monitor quality, identify themes or show that improvements were working. This was a continued breach of Regulation 17.
“The provider did not demonstrate they used quality performance measures in the home.” from the report
One risk assessment was out of date
needs fixingOne person's risks had not been updated during the inspection. The manager provided an updated assessment after the inspection visits.
“However, risks for one person's had not been updated.” from the report
Required notifications were missed
seriousThe report says the provider had failed to notify CQC about events that occurred in the home.
“Since the last inspection we recognised that the provider had failed to notify us of events which occurred in the service.” from the report
- 01What quality checks are now being carried out, and how do you make sure they identify problems and lead to action?
- 02How do you make sure each person's risk assessments are reviewed and updated promptly?
- 03What changes have you made to ensure all events that must be reported to CQC are notified?
- 04How do you check that improvements made by the registered manager are verified by the provider?
- 05What guidance is now available to staff about the ethical and moral dilemma identified in the report?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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.
Every inspection of Poplar Lodge
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 April 2014.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.