CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sidney Avenue Lodge Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Sidney Avenue Lodge Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with tired décor noted.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 06 December 2019. One inspector spoke with four people, two relatives, two staff members, the registered manager and a healthcare professional. They also checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home supported seven people, against a maximum of eight. Inspectors found that people were safe, received their medicines properly and had enough trained staff. People were supported with health care, food, daily choices, activities and relationships. Staff were described as kind, respectful and encouraging of independence.
All five CQC areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same ratings as at the previous inspection, published on 11 May 2017. The report noted that the home was clean and suitable, but its décor and furnishings looked tired, with refurbishment planned.
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on the inspection day, with recruitment checks completed before staff started. Risks, medicines, fire safety and infection control were managed.
“There were adequate numbers of staff on the day of the inspection.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, keep their privacy and build their independence. They could go out and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People were supported to follow their interests and maintain links with the wider community.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, communication needs and health needs. Staff updated plans when people's needs changed.
“People's care plans were person centred.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff listening to people and supporting them patiently. Privacy and dignity were respected.
“People's privacy and dignity was respected. They were able to spend time the way they wanted.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People were supported with health appointments and dietary needs. They helped choose meals, and staff supported them to eat at their own pace.
“People received the support they needed to eat and drink safely.” from the report
Tired décor
minorThe home was clean and tidy, but inspectors found the furnishings basic and the décor tired. The manager said refurbishment was planned and would involve people living there.
“Although the home was suitably clean and tidy, we noted and discussed with the registered manager the décor of the home as it contained basic furnishing and was tired looking.” from the report
- 01What is the timetable for the planned refurbishment, and how will people living here help decide the changes?
- 02How would you assess and update my relative's care plan if their needs or behaviour changed?
- 03What activities and community outings would be available for my relative, and how would you support their independence?
- 04How would you support my relative's dietary, health and communication needs?
- 05How are medicines records checked, and what happens if a recording gap or discrepancy is found?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the ratings were unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 2020 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 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home needed to improve its management and reporting.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 April 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, meeting notes and safety checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People said they felt safe, liked the staff and were treated kindly. Inspectors found that people had individual care plans, access to health professionals, suitable food and opportunities for activities, volunteering and going out.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The home had not always told the CQC about safeguarding matters and other important events, including applications to deprive someone of their liberty. The overall rating remained Good, as the other four areas were rated Good.
People felt safe
People said they liked the staff and felt safe. Staff understood abuse risks and knew how to report concerns.
“People told us they liked the staff and they felt safe with them.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw calm and friendly interactions. Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and life histories.
“We saw that people were very relaxed with staff and it was clear from the calm and friendly interactions between staff and people using the service that positive and supportive relationships had developed between everyone.” from the report
Individual support
Care plans included people's needs, goals, preferences and safety risks. They were reviewed and updated when needed.
“Care plans were centred on the individual and gave staff clear and detailed information about people's needs, goals and aspirations whilst being mindful of identified risks to their safety.” from the report
Choice and activities
People were involved in decisions about their care and could take part in activities, volunteering and going out.
“People who used the service and staff told us about the various opportunities to take part in meaningful activities and volunteering in the home and outside.” from the report
Supported staff team
Staff received training, supervision and appraisals. Staff turnover was low and staff said they felt supported.
“Staff confirmed they received regular supervision and yearly appraisals and we saw records of these supervisions and appraisals on staff files we looked at.” from the report
Important events not always reported
needs fixingThe home had not sent the CQC required notifications about two safeguarding issues and other events. The issues had been dealt with appropriately, but the reporting failure led to the Requires Improvement rating for well-led.
“As the Care Quality Commission was not always receiving statutory notifications about certain changes, events and incidents affecting their service or the people who use it, the judgment for well-led has been rated as 'requires improvement'.” from the report
Controlled drug records
needs fixingControlled drugs were stored safely, but stock balances were not always recorded properly. The deputy manager said a more accurate monitoring system would be introduced.
“However, we noted that controlled drugs which are medicines that are subject to special legislative controls, where not always being recorded appropriately.” from the report
Delayed liberty safeguard applications
needs fixingApplications for some people who might be unsafe to leave the home alone had been completed but not yet sent to the local authority at the inspection. The deputy manager later confirmed they had been sent.
“Although the deputy manager had completed Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications to the local authority, these had not yet been sent.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every safeguarding incident and other required event is reported to the CQC on time?
- 02What system is now used to record and check controlled drug stock balances?
- 03Have all relevant applications to deprive someone of their liberty been sent and followed up with the local authority?
- 04How will people continue to be involved in care reviews, residents' meetings and decisions about activities?
- 05Who is currently the registered manager, and what is the progress of any application to change the registered manager?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the overall rating remained Good from the March 2015 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 2017 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 Sidney Avenue Lodge Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Sidney Avenue Lodge Residential Care Home →
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Sidney Avenue Lodge Residential Care Home →
- May 2015Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2014InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Enfield
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 £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.