CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Spring Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable staffing, effective risk assessments, safe medicines management and a clean environment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices and health needs were assessed and supported by trained staff. People received suitable food and drink, healthcare support and care in line with mental capacity requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives were positive about staff. Inspectors saw kind, respectful interactions, support for independence and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and needs, and activities were available. Inspectors said communication information for one person with a visual impairment needed further development, and end of life planning was not complete.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive, open culture and staff worked well as a team. People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the management, and quality checks and improvement plans were in place.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care plans needing more detail.
This was a planned inspection. It was unannounced and inspectors visited in December 2018. They spoke with eight people, six relatives and five staff. They also reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found a clean and homely environment, enough trained staff, safe medicines management and good links with health professionals.
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable. People were involved in choices about their care, meals, activities and where they spent their time.
The report identified some areas for improvement. Information about supporting one person's visual impairment needed more detail, and end of life plans did not yet record people's preferences after death. The home was previously rated Good in June 2016.
Safe environment
Inspectors found the home clean, fresh and safe, with cleaning arrangements and infection control training in place.
“The environment was clean and fresh and cleaning schedules were in place.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives were consistently positive about staff. Inspectors saw caring interactions and support for people's dignity and independence.
“Staff were kind, caring and passionate about the service provided and there was a positive culture.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, given, stored and recorded safely. Staff had training and checks of their competence.
“Medicines were managed safely. There were systems for ordering, administering and monitoring medicines and people received their medicines at the right time.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and care plans included individual routines, preferences and needs. People and relatives were involved in reviews.
“Staff knew people well and had developed meaningful relationships with the people they supported.” from the report
Good management
Inspectors found an open management structure, strong teamwork and systems for learning and improving the service.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.” from the report
Communication information needed more detail
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments did not fully explain how to support one person with a visual impairment or whether information was needed in a particular format. The manager updated the care plan during the inspection.
“Care plans and risk assessments included some detail about how to support people with their communication needs, however this required further development.” from the report
End of life plans were not complete
needs fixingThe home supported people with end of life care, but plans did not yet include people's preferences after they died. New documentation was still in draft form.
“End of life care planning could be further developed to include people's preferences after they died.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure care plans clearly explain communication support for someone with a visual impairment?
- 02How do you record a person's preferences for end of life care, including what they want to happen after death?
- 03How do you check staffing levels during the busiest times, when people may have to wait longer?
- 04How are people's care plans reviewed with them and their relatives?
- 05How do you monitor whether actions from accidents, incidents and complaints have prevented problems happening again?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the report gives 11 December 2018 as the visit date but says the unannounced inspection took place on 12 December 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 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 Spring Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.