CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at South Africa Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received their medicines as prescribed and environmental and infection risks were well managed. However, some medicine plans and risk guidance lacked detail, and managers agreed to address this.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on detailed assessments and staff had suitable training and supervision. People received support with food, drink, healthcare and specialist equipment.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed kind, respectful care that supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people's histories, needs and preferences. Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed, and people were supported with activities, communication and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure and effective quality checks. Some relatives did not feel fully involved, but managers had identified this and were working to improve meetings and communication.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicine and record-keeping details needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and included visits on 21 and 27 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines information, staffing records, audits and policies.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives were generally positive about the care. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, good infection control, detailed care planning and strong partnership working.
Inspectors found that people received their medicines as prescribed, but some medicine care plans and as-needed medicine plans did not contain enough detail. Some records about supporting people during heightened anxiety also lacked detail. Managers agreed to take immediate action.
The inspection was prompted partly by concerns about falls, nutrition, neglect, staffing and infection control. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. The Good rating means the service was meeting the required standards at the time of this inspection, although improvements were still needed.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed staff responding calmly, protecting privacy and supporting people at their own pace.
“People and relatives were happy with the care provided and spoke positively about the staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, preferences and health needs. Staff showed that they knew the people they supported well.
“Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis, so staff had detailed up to date guidance to provide support relating to people's specific needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in outings, music, arts and crafts, exercises and other activities based on their interests. The home worked to reduce social isolation.
“Activities provided included; trips out in the local community, arts and crafts, music, quizzes and exercises.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received training for their roles and for people's specific conditions. New staff completed induction and shadowing before working alone.
“There was a robust induction programme in place, which new staff were required to complete before working on their own.” from the report
Management and quality checks
Inspectors found a clear management structure and regular audits covering key areas. Managers acted when checks identified improvements were needed.
“Effective and robust quality assurance systems were in place.” from the report
Medicine plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome medicine care plans and as-needed medicine plans did not explain people's symptoms or why medicines had been given in enough detail. Managers agreed to take immediate action.
“some medicine care plans and PRN 'as and when required' medicine plans, lacked detail.” from the report
Staffing feedback was mixed
needs fixingInspectors saw enough staff during the visits, but three relatives said there were not always enough staff. Managers agreed to review staffing levels.
“However, three of the relatives we spoke with felt there was not always enough staff available to people.” from the report
Some relatives felt less involved
minorA few relatives said they were not always fully involved in care or given enough chances to share their views. The home was working on more face-to-face contact and restarting meetings.
“a few relatives told us they did not always feel they were fully involved in their loved one's care or given opportunities to share their views.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to medicine care plans and as-needed medicine plans after the inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure risk plans clearly explain what staff should do when someone becomes anxious or distressed?
- 03How do you decide whether there are enough staff on each unit, especially at busy times?
- 04How are relatives now involved in care planning and given regular opportunities to share their views?
- 05What activities and outings would be available for my relative based on their interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas, including infection prevention and control, and it examined concerns about falls, nutrition, neglect, staffing and infection control. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 October 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, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good, with no evidence of harm from the concerns examined.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 April 2021. Four inspectors and an assistant inspector spoke with relatives and staff, watched care and medicine support, and checked care, medicine and management records.
The inspectors found people were safe, had enough staff and received medicines safely. Infection control arrangements were in place, including measures for COVID-19. They found no evidence that people were at risk from the concerns that prompted the inspection, including falls, nutrition, choice and restrictions on movement.
Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. Staff had relevant training and worked with health professionals. The home was described as well managed, with good communication, audits and involvement of relatives.
The home was inspected but not given an overall rating. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected under the current provider, so the CQC could not give an overall rating from this inspection alone.
People were kept safe
Risk assessments covered issues such as choking, poor mobility, nutrition and skin health. Staff knew people's risks and how to manage them.
“We found people were safe and protected from avoidable harm and abuse.” from the report
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills. New staff worked alongside experienced colleagues before working alone.
“There were enough staff with the right mix of skills to support people safely.” from the report
Good care planning and training
People's needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. Staff received mandatory and additional training, including training in specialist equipment and least restrictive support.
“There were comprehensive assessments of people's needs, and support was regularly reviewed and updated.” from the report
Open and organised management
Relatives and staff described managers as approachable. The provider used audits, surveys and action plans to monitor quality.
“There was an open, transparent and empowering culture with a focus on continuous improvement.” from the report
No registered manager at the visit
minorThe home did not have a manager registered with the CQC when inspectors visited. The general manager had applied to register shortly before the inspection.
“The service did not have a manager registered with CQC at the time of this inspection.” from the report
Some risk-assessment actions were still being addressed
minorUrgent fire-risk actions had been completed or were in progress. A plan was also in place for high-priority actions from the legionella assessment.
“They had put a plan in place to address high priority actions from this.” from the report
Some areas were not inspected
minorThe report does not provide current findings or ratings for Caring and Responsive under the current provider. This limits what the inspection can tell a family about those areas.
“As the key questions caring and responsive have not been inspected under the current provider we cannot give an overall rating based on this inspection alone.” from the report
- 01Has the general manager now been registered with the CQC, and who is responsible for the home while that process is completed?
- 02Have all actions from the fire-risk and legionella assessments now been completed?
- 03How does the home assess and improve the Caring and Responsive areas that were not inspected in this report?
- 04How are falls risks and one-to-one support reviewed for people who are newly admitted?
- 05What have the most recent medicine audits shown, and how are any recording errors followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected under the current provider, so there is no current overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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.
Every inspection of South Africa Lodge
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 November 2020.
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.