CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pulsford Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including protective equipment, testing, visiting, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for staying in touch during the pandemic.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 20 January 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, following social distancing and shielding guidance, carrying out testing, and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
The home also kept families informed through regular communication, continued activities and celebrations, and provided safe ways for people to see or contact relatives.
Infection control training
Staff had received relevant training and were following current infection prevention guidance.
“Staff had received training and were following up to date guidance in infection prevention and control, to minimise risks to people.” from the report
Communication with families
The home kept people, friends and relatives informed during the pandemic through regular communication.
“The registered manager had maintained good communication, including regular newsletters, with people and their friends and relatives throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People had several ways to keep in touch with important people, including a visiting pod, video calls and rapid testing where appropriate.
“There was a comfortable visiting pod where people could see visitors in a safe way.” from the report
Activities and celebrations
The home continued activities and marked special occasions to provide social stimulation.
“The home had continued to provide activities and celebrate special occasions to make sure people had social stimulation.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often is staff training on infection prevention and control updated, and how do you check that staff follow the guidance?
- 02What visiting arrangements are currently in place, and how do you manage testing and infection risks for visitors?
- 03How would you manage an infection outbreak, and how would families be informed?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how do you support people who cannot join group activities?
- 05What are the home's current arrangements for video calls and other contact with relatives?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some waiting at mealtimes and one risk assessment needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 17 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with 16 people living at the home and seven staff. They observed care, lunch, an activity session and a staff handover. They also checked care plans, staff files, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, listened to and well cared for. Inspectors found staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported their health, nutrition, activities and personal routines.
There were two points to note. One person had waited 35 minutes in the dining room before a meal, without staff interaction or entertainment. One falls risk assessment was not comprehensive, but it was reviewed and updated after inspectors raised this.
The overall Good rating continued from the previous inspection. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and well looked after. Staff responded promptly when people asked for help.
“People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Skilled support
Staff had training and knew people well. Inspectors found that care met people's needs and that health concerns were referred to other professionals.
“People received effective care which met their needs because staff had the skills and knowledge required.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spoke to people in a friendly way, listened to them and respected their privacy, choices and pace.
“Staff who supported people were kind, caring and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised routines
Care plans included people's likes and preferences. People could follow their own routines and take part in activities and hobbies that interested them.
“People received personalised care and support because care plans gave information about people's likes and preferences as well as their needs.” from the report
Waiting before meals
minorSome people were taken to the dining room 35 minutes before the meal and had no staff interaction or entertainment while waiting.
“People waited a long time in the dining room before the meal with no staff interaction or entertainment.” from the report
Falls risk assessment
needs fixingOne person's falls risk assessment was not comprehensive. The home reviewed and updated it after inspectors pointed this out.
“The risk assessment for this person was not comprehensive, however when we pointed this out to the registered manager it was reviewed and up dated.” from the report
- 01How long do people usually wait in the dining room before meals, and what support or activities are provided while they wait?
- 02How do you check that falls risk assessments are complete and updated when people's needs change?
- 03What changes have been made to improve the mealtime experience since this inspection?
- 04What progress has been made with the planned enhanced activity programme?
- 05How does the new registered manager make sure staff are supported across the day and night?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings; each rating remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 May 2018 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 Pulsford Lodge
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
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 15 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,020 to £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.