CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at South Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2022
South Lodge Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care but identified a staffing shortfall during one dining period.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 August 2022. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and reviewed records and information from other sources.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff overall, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments, clean and well-maintained premises, and appropriate infection control. They also found that managers responded to problems and listened to feedback.
During one dining period, there were not always enough staff to help people promptly with eating and drinking. The management team said it would address this immediately. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, but this visit only directly reviewed Safe and Well-led.
Risk management
Risks relating to areas such as skin care, eating and drinking, and mobility were assessed and reviewed. Staff understood how to manage these risks.
“Risk assessments were updated regularly, and staff had a good knowledge of risk.” from the report
Medicines
Trained staff administered medicines safely. Records were accurate and checked, and there was guidance for medicines prescribed when needed.
“Medicines were administered by staff that were trained to do so.” from the report
Management and improvement
Managers used audits and checks to identify problems and acted promptly. People, relatives and staff felt able to give feedback.
“There was a comprehensive audit system where managers would check on quality within the service” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, using protective equipment safely and following visiting guidance.
“The provider was following government guidance for visiting procedures within the service.” from the report
Staffing at one dining period
needs fixingAlthough staffing was safe overall, one dining area did not always have enough staff to help people promptly with eating and drinking. This created a risk that food would become cold.
“in one dining area there was not always enough staff to support people promptly with their needs to eat and drink, which meant there was risk their food would be cold.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to staffing during the dining period where people were not always supported promptly?
- 02How do you now check that people receive timely help with eating and drinking?
- 03What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection?
- 04How are audits and checks used to make sure identified problems are dealt with promptly?
- 05How will you keep families informed if there is an incident, safeguarding concern or other serious problem?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 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 2019
South Lodge Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but delays in support and weaknesses in management checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 05 March 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines, accidents, complaints, staff recruitment and training, and quality records.
The home provided nursing and personal care for up to 106 older people. There were 93 people living there. Inspectors found good care in several areas. People were treated with kindness and respect, received personalised support, had access to activities and were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
However, staffing was not always organised well enough. People in two units experienced delays with personal care and medicines. The home also needed to improve how it recorded and followed up actions from audits. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff relationships. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and people's individual communication needs.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect, and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, routines and communication needs. Staff followed detailed guidance to provide individual support.
“Care plans included people's life history, significant events, their wishes and preferences and routines that were important to them.” from the report
Training and healthcare
Staff had relevant training and worked with healthcare professionals. People were supported with nutrition, appointments and specialist care when needed.
“Staff had received appropriate training and had the skills they required to meet people's needs.” from the report
Activities and end of life care
People could choose from activities such as baking and reminiscence sessions. Staff also supported people to plan end of life care around their wishes.
“People had access to a range of meaningful activities and were able to choose if they wished to participate.” from the report
Delays caused by staffing
seriousStaff were not always deployed effectively. Some people waited too long for personal care and medicines, and relatives sometimes had to provide basic support themselves.
“Two relatives told us they had supported their family member to get up, washed, dressed and provided them with breakfast as they had arrived mid-morning and found the person in bed, still waiting for assistance.” from the report
Audit actions were not clear
needs fixingThe provider carried out checks, but records did not clearly show when improvements should happen or whether they had been completed.
“Quality assurance records did not demonstrate that appropriate action had been taken and the required improvements had been made.” from the report
Unsettled management arrangements
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the inspection. Staff were not always clear about their roles after changes introduced by the new provider.
“Staff were not always clear on their roles due to changes in systems of working, introduced by the new provider.” from the report
Limited confidence in improvements
needs fixingPeople and relatives could share their views, but some did not feel confident that action would follow. Relatives also reported poor communication during the provider change.
“People and relatives told us they were able to share their views, although they felt improvements were not always noticed as a result.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure enough staff are deployed in each unit, especially at busy times?
- 02How do you monitor whether people receive personal care and medicines on time?
- 03What changes have been made since the inspection to ensure audit actions are completed and recorded?
- 04Who is the registered manager now, and what progress has been made with manager registration?
- 05How are residents and relatives told about changes, and how do you show that their feedback leads to action?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; it was the first inspection under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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 South Lodge Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.