CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Star Care Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risks were clearly assessed, medicines were managed safely and staffing was flexible enough to meet people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received assessments and support suited to their needs. Staff were trained and supported, worked with health professionals and helped people maintain their health and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with dignity and respect. People were involved in their care and supported to make choices and build independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's needs, preferences, goals and mental health warning signs. People were supported with relationships, community activities, communication and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture and effective checks on care quality, medicines, safety and infection control. Staff and relatives spoke positively about the management.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no serious concerns identified.
Inspectors visited the home on 3 March 2020. They spoke with four people, one relative and three staff members. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records, and contacted two professionals after the visit.
They found enough staff to support people safely and help them take part in activities and community life. Risks were assessed and managed while people were supported to remain independent. Medicines, safeguarding, staff training and healthcare support were found to be well managed.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and goals. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection in 2017 also rated the home Good.
Safe, personalised risk support
Risks were managed in a way that aimed to keep people safe without unnecessarily limiting their independence. Staff had clear guidance for supporting people at home and when out in the community.
“Individual risk assessments identified risks and how staff should support people to stay safe while maintaining and increasing their independence.” from the report
Personalised care
Support plans reflected people's strengths, interests, preferences and goals. Staff knew how each person communicated and how best to support them.
“People's care and support was individual, planned and provided in a way that put them at the centre of planning.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described the care positively. Staff supported privacy, choice and independence, including helping people manage everyday tasks.
“People told us they were given support when they needed it and their choices were respected.” from the report
Good links with health services
Staff worked with healthcare professionals and relatives to support people's physical and mental health. People were helped to access appointments and advice when needed.
“Staff worked very closely with healthcare professionals and others to make sure people received an effective, joined up service.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home used regular audits and reviewed incidents to identify and act on improvements. Staff described the management as open and supportive.
“The provider had an effective quality monitoring process in place to make sure people were receiving a safe and good quality service.” from the report
Feedback had not yet been reviewed
minorPeople and staff had recently completed surveys, but the manager had not yet analysed the results or responded to people. This was a minor unfinished action at the time of inspection.
“The registered manager had not had the opportunity to analyse the results and respond to people.” from the report
Some information was still being simplified
minorEasy-read information was available for some documents, but other documents were still being adapted into easier formats. Families should check how information will be explained to their relative.
“The registered manager was working on other documents that would benefit people by being in an easier read format.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's particular mental health needs, including any known triggers or signs of relapse?
- 02How would you balance my relative's safety with their wish to go out independently?
- 03What support would my relative receive with medicines, and could they work towards managing them more independently?
- 04How would you communicate important information if my relative finds reading or writing difficult?
- 05What changes have been made after analysing the recent surveys from people using the home and staff?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care provided, records, staffing, medicines and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 2020 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, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements made since earlier medicine, staffing and management concerns.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 7 March 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also checked care files, medicine records, staff records, training, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were now managed safely, staff were trained and supported, risks were assessed, and there were enough staff for the people living there at the time.
People were involved in their care, meals and activities. They could come and go freely and were supported to stay as independent as possible. Inspectors also found clear care plans, regular reviews, a complaints process and stronger quality monitoring.
The previous inspection in December 2015 found three breaches involving medicines, quality monitoring and staff support. This inspection found that the provider had made the necessary improvements and had addressed those breaches.
Safer medicines
Medicine storage, ordering, returns and administration records were well organised. Staff had guidance and competency checks to support safe administration.
“Medicines were managed well which helped to keep people safe from errors being made.” from the report
Independence and choice
People helped plan and cook meals, chose their activities and could come and go as they wished. Staff encouraged people to build skills for more independent living.
“People were given the opportunity to live as independent a life as possible.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well and responded to signs of anxiety. People and relatives described the atmosphere and staff positively.
“People were happy and told us they were well supported by staff who cared.” from the report
Clear care planning
Care plans included detailed information about mental health, emotional wellbeing and personal goals. Reviews involved people and, where appropriate, relatives and professionals.
“Care plans were detailed giving clear information to enable staff to support people with their individual needs.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider had introduced regular audits covering medicines, care plans, infection control, health and safety, maintenance and the grounds.
“The provider now had a robust approach to quality monitoring, having structured processes in place.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorSome people and a relative raised concerns about the healthiness and choice of meals, including a lack of vegetables. Inspectors saw that menus offered variety and that people were consulted.
“There don't appear to be enough vegetables” from the report
One medicine recording error
needs fixingTwo tablets appeared to be missing when stock was checked. The medicines had been taken home by a person for a weekend, but the medicine record had not explained this correctly.
“One error was found when checking the amounts of medicines left against the amounts of the medicine already given.” from the report
Building needed updating
minorA relative said the building needed updating. Some bedrooms were being decorated when they were not occupied.
“The building does need updating, but I know that can be difficult.” from the report
More group activities wanted
minorPeople and staff said they would like more group activities and days out. The manager said trips were planned for the summer.
“People and staff said they would like to see more group activities such as days out when the weather is fine.” from the report
- 01How do you now check medicine records when a person takes medicines away for a weekend or holiday?
- 02What would staffing levels be if the home became full, given that more staff would then be needed?
- 03What changes have you made to meals following comments about healthy food, vegetables and choice?
- 04What group activities or days out have been provided since the inspection?
- 05What updates or improvements have been made to the building since the inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and checking whether earlier breaches had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 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 Star Care Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 January 2013.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway
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 £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.