CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Swanage Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care after earlier shortfalls were addressed.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 4 April 2023. The inspector met four people living at the home, a relative, three support staff and members of the management team. They reviewed three care records, other service records and medicines management.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, managed risks, safe medicines practice and systems to monitor quality. People were involved in their care and were supported to make choices.
The previous inspection in March 2022 had rated the home Requires Improvement and found breaches relating to safe care and treatment and good governance. The provider completed an action plan, and inspectors found enough improvement had been made. The home was no longer in breach of those regulations.
Risk management
Risks were assessed with people and regularly updated. Plans included possible triggers, consequences and ways to promote independence safely.
“Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and planned for.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The provider used its own staff pool to cover absences.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff were trained, and medicines were reviewed with healthcare professionals.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Positive culture
Staff knew people well and supported them to make choices and take part in activities suited to their interests and wishes.
“There was a positive and person-centred culture. The management team and staff knew people well” from the report
Limited inspection scope
minorThe visit did not inspect Caring or Responsive. The report therefore does not give new findings about how caring the service is or how well it responds to people's changing needs.
“This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe, Effective and Well-led.” from the report
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's specific mental and physical health risks?
- 02How are medicines reviewed, and how will you tell us if there is a change in their medicines?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough trained staff when regular staff are absent?
- 04How will my relative be involved in decisions about care, including any agreed restrictions?
- 05What recent feedback have people and relatives given about the home, and what changes were made as a result?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the previous ratings for the uninspected areas were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 2023 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, March 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but ongoing safety and management concerns remained.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 08 February 2022. They met all six people living at the home, observed care, checked some care records, medicines, finances and audits, and partly toured the building. They also checked infection control and COVID-19 vaccination arrangements.
The home had improved since its previous inadequate rating. Inspectors found good care and good responsiveness. People were treated with kindness, involved in decisions and supported to maintain independence. Staff were trained, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
However, hazards remained in the garden, smoking area and parts of the home. Some risks and restrictions were not recorded or managed in enough detail. The systems used to check quality and safety were still not working reliably. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall and remained in breach of two regulations.
The home had been in Special Measures since 28 August 2021. Because it was no longer rated inadequate overall or in any key question, it left Special Measures after this inspection. CQC requested an action plan and said it would continue monitoring the home.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated well and had good relationships with staff. Staff respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
“People were treated well and supported. We observed staff interacting well with people, offering them choices and respecting these choices.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in planning their care, and care plans described their individual needs and choices. Plans were reviewed each month.
“People received personalised care which reflected their needs and choices.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff received training, support and checks of their competence.
“People were cared for by staff who were well supported, trained and had the skills they needed.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored securely, given as prescribed and checked. Staff administering them were trained and assessed as competent.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and in a safe way.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had made several improvements, including to medicines, finances, audits and management arrangements. The home moved from inadequate to Requires Improvement and left Special Measures.
“During this inspection the provider demonstrated that improvements have been made.” from the report
Environmental hazards
seriousInspectors found broken decking and tools in the garden and smoking area, a damaged en-suite toilet and unsecured cleaning chemicals. These hazards had not always been assessed, monitored or dealt with.
“There were hazards in the garden and smoking area which included broken decking and tools.” from the report
Risks not fully assessed
seriousThe home had not assessed the risks of a bonfire attended by residents. Some COVID-19 risk assessments were generic and did not reflect people's specific health risks.
“The provider had held a bonfire in the garden in which rubbish and metal items had been burnt.” from the report
Restrictions and consent records
needs fixingRestrictions involving CCTV, locked rooms, cigarettes and food were not always properly recorded or supported by formal agreements for each person.
“However, this was not always the case for each person.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits and monitoring systems did not always identify or control risks. Some audit templates lacked enough detail, and records were incomplete or used inappropriate wording.
“The provider's systems and processes for monitoring the quality of the service and risk were not always operated effectively.” from the report
Limited daily activities
needs fixingPeople had some trips and special events, but inspectors said they would benefit from more daily activities and therapeutic support. The home linked this partly to the pandemic.
“However, people would benefit from more opportunities for daily activities and therapeutic support.” from the report
- 01What has been done to remove or repair the broken decking, tools, damaged toilet and unsecured cleaning chemicals?
- 02How are risks for activities such as bonfires assessed and controlled now?
- 03How are CCTV, locked rooms, cigarettes and food restrictions formally agreed, recorded and reviewed for each person?
- 04How have the quality audits and risk checks been changed so that problems are identified promptly?
- 05What daily activities and therapeutic support are now available, beyond trips and special events?
This inspection covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and COVID-19 vaccination arrangements, but inspectors only partly toured the environment and reviewed selected records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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.
Every inspection of Swanage Lodge
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2021Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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 Hillingdon
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 £1,320 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.