CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Southview Lodge Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Southview Lodge Residential Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but serious weaknesses in medicines, risk checks, recruitment and management.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 5 and 14 June 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
People were treated kindly and with respect. Staff knew people well, responded promptly and supported meals, activities and access to health professionals. The home was clean, well maintained and had suitable indoor and outdoor space.
However, safety checks and care records were not reliable enough. Medicines records were incomplete, some medicines were not stored safely, and staff had started work before all recruitment checks were completed. Some required consent authorisations had not been obtained.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. All five areas had been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 3 February 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw caring interactions and found that privacy and dignity were respected.
“We observed kind and respectful interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's needs, choices and preferences. Staffing numbers were adequate on the inspection day and people received prompt support.
“On the day of the inspection there were adequate numbers of staff to support people in a timely manner.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People were offered choices and supported to eat a balanced diet. They had prompt access to GPs and other health professionals when needed.
“People were supported to eat a nutritionally balanced diet.” from the report
Well-maintained surroundings
The home was clean and tidy, with accessible indoor areas and a secure garden. People's rooms were personalised.
“The home was nicely decorated and well maintained.” from the report
Activities and community links
Meaningful activities were available, with an activities coordinator. The home had links with a local school, church and mobile library.
“Meaningful activities were taking place within the home; the service employed an activities coordinator.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicines administration records were unsigned. Storage checks and guidance for 'when required' medicines were missing, and one medicine had been kept in the wrong strength packet.
“We could not be assured people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Risks were not consistently managed
seriousEnvironmental checks were limited and did not identify every risk. Care plans and risk assessments were not always updated after people's needs changed.
“There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.” from the report
Recruitment checks were incomplete
seriousStaff had started work before DBS checks and references had been completed. Interview records were also not always available.
“Staff had started work before relevant pre-recruitment checks, such as disclosure and barring (DBS) checks and character references had been undertaken.” from the report
Consent procedures were not followed
seriousThe home did not always apply for the required authorisations when people were deprived of their liberty for their safety. Capacity assessments did not always clearly state which decision they covered.
“Applications had not always been made for those who were being deprived of their liberty for their own safety.” from the report
Management checks were too weak
needs fixingAudits did not reliably identify problems with medicines, health and safety, care records, accidents and recruitment. Policies were not up to date.
“The registered manager was not always aware of the failings in the home due to a lack of robust audits and quality assurance.” from the report
Care and end of life records needed improvement
needs fixingPaper care records were not always current, and end of life care records were not robust. No one was receiving end of life care during the inspection.
“However, end of life care records were not robust.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the way medicines are recorded, stored and audited since this inspection?
- 02How do you make sure care plans and risk assessments are updated after a hospital discharge or other change in need?
- 03Have all required DBS checks, references and interview records now been completed before staff start work?
- 04How do you check that mental capacity assessments and DoLS applications are completed correctly?
- 05What evidence can you show that the action plan, audits and policy updates have been completed and are working?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Southview Lodge Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 16 and 21 November 2016. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and mealtimes, checked care and medicines records, and reviewed staffing, training, safety and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines procedures, suitable training, updated care plans and kind interactions. People had access to activities, food and drinks, healthcare and a complaints process.
The home had improved since the February 2015 inspection. Problems previously found with person-centred care, safe care, the premises, consent, staffing, governance and reporting incidents had been addressed. The report says the provider was meeting the relevant requirements at this inspection.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment checks, medicines storage and administration were also found to be safe.
“We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback. Inspectors saw calm, caring interactions and staff who knew people's histories, likes and dislikes.
“We observed staff treated people with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included information about daily routines, communication, health, behaviour, preferences and safety. Plans were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were organised and had identified the care and support people required.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered activities such as crafts, movie nights, games and hand massage. It also involved local schools and community groups.
“People told us they enjoyed the activities organised by the service.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had introduced regular checks covering care planning, the environment, infection control, medicines and staff training. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was discussed.
“We saw a range of checks and audits were in use which covered areas such as care planning, the environment, infection control, medicines and staff training.” from the report
Evening workload
minorTwo people said staff were sometimes pushed during the evenings. The home had responded by adding a shift from 17:00 to 22:00, and inspectors found staffing was sufficient during their visit.
“two people told us staff were sometimes 'pushed' during the evenings.” from the report
More personal information being added
minorThe home was still adding more life history and preference information to written care plans. Ask how this work was completed and kept up to date.
“The provider was in the process of adding more of this information into people's written plans of care in order to make the care and support people received even more person centred.” from the report
- 01How is staffing arranged between 17:00 and 22:00, and has the extra evening shift continued?
- 02How do you record and update each person's life history, likes, dislikes and care preferences?
- 03How do you check that care plans are updated promptly when someone's needs change?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how do you make sure they reflect each person's interests?
- 05How can residents and relatives raise concerns, and how are concerns recorded and reviewed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with all five ratings assessed during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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 Southview Lodge Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Southview Lodge Residential Care Home →
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Southview Lodge Residential Care Home →
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.