CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Ark Care Lodge Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2020
The Ark Care Lodge Limited was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and familiar care, but important safety, staffing and management systems were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 December 2019. One inspector spoke with a person using the service, four staff, four relatives and a visiting professional. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was supporting 15 adults with learning disabilities. Staff knew people well and worked with health professionals. However, fire safety records, water temperature checks, medicine systems and some risk information were not up to date or clear. Staff recruitment, training and supervision records were also disorganised.
People did not always have enough choice, independence or activities. Menus had limited input from residents, and information was not always available in accessible formats. The home was rated Requires Improvement in all five areas, down from Good at the previous inspection in 2017.
Staff knew residents
People received care from a regular group of staff who knew their needs well. Relatives also described good relationships between people and staff.
“People received care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Health support
Staff helped people attend health appointments and contacted GPs when people became unwell. They also worked with other health and social care professionals.
“Staff supported people to attend health appointments and referred people promptly to their GP when they showed signs of illness.” from the report
Consent and least restriction
Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and asked people for consent before providing care. Applications for legal safeguards had been submitted appropriately.
“People confirmed the staff always asked their consent before providing their care.” from the report
Clean environment
The inspector found the home clean and without unpleasant smells.
“All areas of the home appeared clean and were free of odour.” from the report
Fire and other safety checks
seriousFire equipment certificates and evacuation information were out of date or unclear. Water temperature checks and handwashing facilities also presented risks.
“This meant people were at risk if there was a fire at the home.” from the report
Medicines systems
seriousSome staff had not completed refresher training for a long time, and senior staff did not check their competence. There was also no medicines administration record for one person's as-required medicine.
“Senior staff did not carry out spot checks to ensure staff were competent.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
needs fixingRecords did not clearly show when refresher training was due. Staff did not receive regular supervision or appraisals.
“Staff did not receive regular supervision or appraisals to identify areas of strength or concern.” from the report
Limited choice and activities
needs fixingPeople were not consistently supported to pursue hobbies, goals, learning or work opportunities. Menus had limited input from people living at the home.
“People were not supported to pursue hobbies or specific interests.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits and records were limited or unclear, so the manager had not identified the problems found by inspectors. Feedback was not gathered regularly from residents, relatives or professionals.
“The provider had failed to implement effective governance systems or processes to effectively assess, monitor or drive improvement in the quality and safety of the care being provided.” from the report
- 01What has been done to bring fire safety certificates, alarm checks and Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans up to date?
- 02How do you now check that staff have completed required training, refresher training, supervision and appraisals?
- 03How are medicines, including as-required medicines, recorded and checked for safe administration?
- 04How are residents now involved in choosing menus and planning activities, hobbies, outings or work opportunities?
- 05What audits and feedback systems are now used to identify and correct risks and quality problems?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the premises and care provided and assessed all five CQC questions; the previous Good ratings from 2017 were all reassessed and reduced to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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, June 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home was not always well-led.
The inspection was unannounced on 11 May 2017. Inspectors returned on 12 May 2017, with this visit announced. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, managers and a visiting professional. They also reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints, meetings and the building.
Inspectors found that people were safe and supported by enough trained staff. Risks were assessed, medicines were administered safely, and the home was clean and well maintained. People received food and healthcare that met their needs.
People described staff as kind and respectful. Staff supported people's choices, independence, hobbies, family contact and community activities. Care plans had improved and gave staff better information about people's individual needs.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because there was no registered manager and quality checks were not yet strong enough to consistently drive improvements.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including support to go out. Recruitment checks had also improved and were completed before staff started work.
“Staff recruitment records contained a completed application form, a record of their interview, along with two written references and a Disclosure and Barring Services (DBS) check.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people, respected their privacy and supported their independence. Inspectors saw warm, positive interactions.
“We observed a number of examples of kindness by staff towards people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, goals and support needs. Staff used this information to respond when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were detailed and had information that enabled staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Improved staff support
Staff training records were up to date, and staff received supervision and support to develop their skills.
“The manager had updated the staff induction training which now included observation of staff practice and a competency assessment.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post. Managers had started the application process, but the CQC said it would continue to monitor whether the registration condition was met.
“A registered manager was not in post.” from the report
Quality checks needed strengthening
needs fixingAudits had been completed, but inspectors said they were not yet robust enough to consistently lead to improvements. Meeting minutes also did not clearly record what action would be taken.
“Further action was needed to ensure that the audits were robust and drove improvements to the quality of care people received.” from the report
Complaint information was not easy read
minorThe complaints procedure was not available in an easy read format using pictures. Managers said they would produce one.
“The complaint procedure was not available in an easy read format using pictures, so that people who used the service could understand the process more easily.” from the report
Some notifications were missed
needs fixingSome incidents had been reported to the local authority safeguarding team but not always to the CQC. Managers said future notifications would be submitted promptly.
“These incidents had been reported to the local authority safeguarding team but not always been reported to ourselves which they must do.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now been appointed and registered with the CQC?
- 02How do you check that audits lead to completed improvements, rather than just recording checks?
- 03How are actions from residents' and staff meetings recorded and followed up?
- 04Is the complaints procedure now available in an easy read format with pictures?
- 05How do you make sure all incidents that must be reported to the CQC are notified promptly?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with an unannounced visit followed by an announced return visit; the provider did not return the requested Provider Information Return. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 June 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 The Ark Care Lodge Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 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
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.