CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rose Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, testing, PPE, cleaning and the home’s response to outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was a targeted infection prevention and control inspection, so this question was not assessed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that the home had strong infection prevention and control measures during a COVID-19 outbreak.
The CQC made an unannounced, targeted inspection on 12 January 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control because the home was dealing with a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found controls around visitors, testing, hand washing, temperatures and personal protective equipment. Staff used barrier nursing, and people with COVID-19 had signs on their doors.
The building was clean and free from clutter. Staff had separate changing and dining areas, cleaning schedules were in place, and people and staff were regularly tested.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of the home, so the report does not provide ratings for the quality of care overall.
PPE and barrier nursing
Staff used full PPE for people who were COVID-19 positive or negative. Inspectors saw appropriate changing and disposal of PPE.
“People were supported by staff in full PPE, whether that person was COVID-19 positive or negative.” from the report
Visitor and staff checks
Only essential visitors were allowed during the outbreak. People entering the home had hand washing, temperature checks and COVID-19 testing.
“Visitors were asked to take a COVID-19 test and wait a short time in the car park for the result.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and free from clutter. Extra cleaning hours supported infection control.
“The building was clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Staff arrangements
Staff groups had separate changing and dining areas, and staff took breaks individually to reduce infection risks.
“All staff groups had different changing areas and dining areas to maintain infection control.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently managed, and are visitors still asked to take a COVID-19 test?
- 02How do staff use, change and dispose of PPE when supporting people with infections?
- 03How often are people living in the home and staff tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 04Are the separate staff changing and dining arrangements, individual breaks and extra cleaning hours still in place?
- 05How does the home identify and manage people who test positive for an infection?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 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, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some care plans and staff interactions needing improvement.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 31 July 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff files, training records 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 procedures, regular risk reviews, access to healthcare and support with food, drink and activities.
People were treated with kindness and respect, and their choices, privacy and dignity were supported. The home listened to complaints and held meetings with people and relatives. Inspectors noted some missed opportunities for staff to interact with people and said some care plans needed further development.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in May 2016. Inspectors found that this rating remained supported and found no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Enough trained staff
People and staff told inspectors there were enough suitably skilled staff. Recruitment checks, training and supervision were in place.
“Everyone we spoke with confirmed people were supported by sufficient numbers of suitably skilled and knowledgeable staff to meet their needs in a relaxed and unhurried manner.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored and given according to instructions. Checks were carried out and errors or discrepancies were investigated.
“Systems continued to be effective and ensured medicines were stored safely and administered in line with the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind, and inspectors saw staff supporting privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“Staff supported and treated people with respect.” from the report
Individual activities
Activities were based on people's interests, with both group and individual options available.
“The activity co-ordinator offered individual time for those who had complex needs for example reading a book or a hand massage.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff said the manager was approachable. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality.
“There was a management structure in the service which provided clear lines of responsibility and accountability.” from the report
Some missed interactions
needs fixingDuring an observation, some staff missed opportunities to interact with and support people, particularly in the area mainly used by people living with dementia. The manager said this would be discussed with staff.
“We saw that some staff had missed opportunities to interact and support people, which were discussed with the registered manager.” from the report
Care plans needed more detail
needs fixingThe home had identified that some care plans did not contain all the information relevant to people's care and support needs. Work to improve them was underway.
“Further development was needed of some people's care plans to ensure they included all information relevant to the persons care and support needs.” from the report
One approach did not follow the care plan
needs fixingInspectors saw one staff approach that was not initially in line with a person's care plan. The person reacted badly, but staff then followed the plan and helped them become calm.
“However, we saw one incident where a member of staff approached a person that was not initially in line with their care plan.” from the report
- 01What actions have been completed to improve the care plans that inspectors said needed more information?
- 02How do you make sure staff follow each person's care plan, especially when supporting people living with dementia?
- 03How do you check that staff spend enough time interacting with people who have complex communication needs?
- 04How are staffing levels decided for my relative's individual needs?
- 05How will you record and support my relative's activities, healthcare needs and end-of-life wishes?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC question areas, and the ratings remained Good from the May 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 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 Rose Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.