CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Silversea Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with activities, communication, complaints and end-of-life planning.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive management structure, regular audits, staff involvement and systems for learning from accidents and incidents.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Silversea Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found that earlier problems had been improved and the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 April 2021. One inspector spoke with eight people, one relative and four staff. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found safe staffing and medicines systems, suitable care planning, support with food and healthcare, activities, and regular management checks.
The previous inspection in March 2019 had rated the home Requires Improvement and found several breaches. This inspection found improvements in risk management, consent, personalised care and governance, so the provider was no longer in breach.
Safer care and medicines
Risk assessments and care plans were clearer and regularly reviewed. Staff who gave medicines were trained and assessed as competent, with audits in place.
“Medicine records we reviewed were in good order. There were suitable systems in place for the storage, ordering, administering, monitoring and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Choice and consent
The home had improved its work under the Mental Capacity Act. People were supported to make decisions, with best-interest and least-restrictive approaches used where needed.
“The manager and provider worked within the principles of least restrictive practices and demonstrated people were supported to make their own decisions and choices.” from the report
Personalised support
Inspectors found that care plans reflected people's individual needs and were reviewed when information changed. People and their relatives or advocates were involved.
“Care and support plans we reviewed were very person centred and contained all the information staff needed to support people safely.” from the report
Supportive leadership
The new manager had introduced audits, training and systems to learn from incidents. Staff said they felt supported and worked well as a team.
“There was a positive management structure in place which was open and transparent.” from the report
Whistleblowing awareness
minorA staff survey showed that not everyone knew about the whistleblowing policy. The manager responded by starting monthly policy reviews, beginning with this policy.
“Staff survey showed not all staff were aware of the 'whistle blowing' policy.” from the report
- 01What checks do you now use to make sure all staff understand the whistleblowing policy?
- 02How often are risk assessments and care plans reviewed, and how are changes shared with staff?
- 03How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
- 04How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
- 05What improvements have been made since the inspection on 28 April 2021?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection based on the previous rating and included infection prevention and control; the report gives ratings for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led but no separate Caring rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but risks, medicines, care planning and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 March 2019. Two inspectors observed care, spoke with five people and three staff, reviewed four care files and checked medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality systems.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, there were enough staff at the time, meals were viewed positively, and people could access healthcare. However, risks were not always identified or controlled, medicines were not always managed safely, and some equipment and fire safety checks needed attention.
Care records did not fully explain people's needs. Staff did not always follow the Mental Capacity Act properly, and people had limited opportunities for meaningful activities. Quality checks had failed to find several problems, including unsafe recorded hot water temperatures. The overall rating and the ratings for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw good relationships and found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“People were treated with care, kindness, respect and dignity, and spoke positively about the caring attitude of staff.” from the report
Staff available
At the time of inspection, staffing levels were enough to meet people's needs and call alarms were answered promptly.
“The deployment of staff was appropriate and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Food and drink
People could choose where to eat and had access to food and drink during the day. Staff took account of nutritional and swallowing needs.
“People had access to food and drink throughout the day and the overall dining experience for people was positive.” from the report
Healthcare links
People could access healthcare when needed. The home worked with other organisations to support joined-up care.
“The service worked with other organisations to ensure they delivered joined-up care and support.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and odour free, and staff had suitable protective equipment for infection control.
“The service was clean and odour free. Staff had access to personal protective equipment to help prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Unmanaged safety risks
seriousInspectors found several risks that had not been assessed or controlled, including unsuitable bedrail bumpers, unsecured wardrobes, an incorrect hoist sling and overdue servicing of hoist equipment.
“There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.” from the report
Medicine problems
seriousOne person missed controlled drug doses on five occasions. Records were incomplete for some medicines, and some medicines were not stored safely.
“One person had not received their controlled drug medication in line with the prescriber's instructions on five occasions between 17 December 2018 and 14 March 2019.” from the report
Mental capacity and consent
seriousThe home had not assessed some people's capacity for specific decisions or recorded best-interest decisions. DoLS applications had not been considered for two people.
“People's mental capacity to make particular decisions was not assessed.” from the report
Care plans and activities
needs fixingCare records did not fully explain people's conditions or support needs. Activities and opportunities to follow interests or access the community were limited.
“People were not always supported to follow their interests or encourage them to take part in social activities relevant to their interests and hobbies, or access the local community.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems had not found or acted on important problems. Records showed potentially dangerous hot water temperatures, but there was no evidence of action.
“This presented a significantly high scalding risk to people using the service if the records were accurate.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
needs fixingThe garden needed improvement and the home lacked clear signs and visual clues to help people living with dementia find important rooms and areas.
“The environment lacked appropriate signage for people living with dementia and did not comply with the Accessible Information Standard.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make the bedrails, wardrobes, hoist sling, hoist equipment, fire doors and emergency lighting safe?
- 02How do you now check that controlled medicines are given as prescribed and that all medicine records are complete?
- 03Have mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and any required DoLS applications been completed for each person?
- 04How are care plans being updated so they explain each person's conditions, daily support needs and preferred activities?
- 05What system now checks hot water temperatures and other safety issues, and how do you record and follow up corrective action?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the care home, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 May 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 Silversea Lodge
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 September 2015.
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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.