CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sennen Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Sennen Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, but noted pressure on staffing.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 23 February 2022. The inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
They found the home was clean and hygienic. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly. There were plans for managing an outbreak, and testing was available for people living at the home and staff.
The home had taken account of people's needs when encouraging social distancing and supporting COVID-19 testing. Inspectors also noted that workforce pressures were challenging because of the complexity of people's needs.
The service was inspected but not rated. The report gives no full overall rating and only records the Safe question as inspected but not rated.
Sensitive social distancing
Staff considered people's needs and the possible distress caused by rules they might not understand. Inspectors saw this as a balanced approach to safety and wellbeing.
“Staff had taken a pragmatic approach to encouraging social distancing.” from the report
Support with testing
The provider helped people overcome difficulties with understanding or feeling apprehensive about COVID-19 testing. A testing programme was also in place for staff.
“The provider had taken appropriate steps to help people access Covid-19 testing where possible and in their best interests.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic. Enhanced cleaning focused on areas people often touched, such as door handles.
“The home was clean and hygienic. The provider had implemented policies of enhanced cleaning focussing on high contact areas such as door handles.” from the report
PPE available and used
There was a good supply of personal protective equipment, and inspectors saw staff using it correctly.
“There was a good supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) available. We observed staff wearing appropriate PPE in the correct way.” from the report
Workforce pressure
minorThe report says the home was particularly vulnerable to workforce pressures because of people's complex needs. The manager and staff had taken steps to reduce the risks, but said maintaining good-quality care was challenging.
“Due to the complexity of people's needs, the service was particularly vulnerable to the impact of workforce pressures.” from the report
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures, and how do you make sure care remains consistent when staffing is difficult?
- 02What is your current plan for preventing and managing a COVID-19 or other infection outbreak?
- 03How do you support my relative if they find testing difficult to understand or become apprehensive about it?
- 04How are visits currently arranged, and what infection control measures apply to visitors and visiting professionals?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 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, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection over 15, 16 and 19 November 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care plans, recruitment files, incident records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment, suitable training, detailed care plans, kind care, personalised activities and better systems for checking quality.
The home had been rated Requires Improvement in August 2017, with breaches linked to recruitment, staff training and supervision, and quality monitoring. Inspectors found these problems had been addressed. The report also says the home could provide only limited end of life care.
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how people communicated and how staff should support them. Staff used visual aids, communication passports and Makaton where helpful.
“These measures helped staff effectively meet people's communication needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences and responded calmly when people became anxious. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and respect.
“Staff were caring and attentive to people and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Support for independence
People were helped to make everyday choices and build skills. One person was supported to use adapted cutlery and eat independently.
“Once a suitable choice was made the person could eat independently.” from the report
Strong incident and medicine management
The home reviewed incidents to identify triggers and reduce repeat events. Staff also worked with health professionals to reduce medicines where appropriate.
“This analysis was effective in identifying triggers for incidents and putting measures in place to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.” from the report
Limited end of life support
minorThe home was not providing end of life care at the time and said it could offer only limited support in this area. Families should ask what would happen if their relative's needs changed.
“The registered manager told us that they could only provide limited support around end of life care.” from the report
- 01How have you maintained the improvements in recruitment, staff training, supervision and quality checks since this inspection?
- 02How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, including any visual aids, communication passport or Makaton?
- 03How do you review medicines that may be used for anxiety, and how would my relative and family be involved in those reviews?
- 04What support could you provide if my relative needed end of life care, and what arrangements would be made with health professionals or another service?
- 05How would you respond if my relative's behaviour or support needs changed, and how would staffing levels be adjusted?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; people could not give direct feedback because of complex communication needs, so the inspector also observed care and spoke with relatives and professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 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 Sennen Lodge
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.