CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
The Lodge Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found clear improvements in safety and management, with some refresher training still overdue.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 1 February 2022. Inspectors checked Safe and Well-led, reviewed records, and spoke with people, relatives, staff, the manager and external professionals. They also checked infection control and COVID-19 vaccination arrangements.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that incidents were recorded and investigated, medicines were managed safely, care plans had been updated, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. People and relatives said staff were kind, helpful and knowledgeable.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with breaches linked to safety, staffing, safeguarding, governance and notifications. Inspectors found that the required improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach of regulations. Some refresher training was overdue, but an action plan was in place.
Improved safety systems
The home introduced electronic care planning and governance systems. These helped staff report concerns quickly and kept care plans and risk assessments up to date.
“This meant people's care plans and risk assessments were updated in real time to help ensure staff had access to the most up to date information they needed to support people safely.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines matched the records and that administration records were clear. Audits identified errors and led to retraining and competency checks.
“The monitoring of medicines and medicine administration had improved since the previous inspection.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People felt safe and said staff were kind and helpful. Relatives described staff as skilled, knowledgeable and respectful.
“People felt safe and said staff were kind and helpful.” from the report
Better management oversight
The provider's governance systems were being used to monitor risks and drive improvements. Staff said they felt listened to and confident raising issues.
“This helped the registered manager to keep a close overview of all areas including medicines, safeguarding, accidents and incidents.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including COVID-19 vaccination checks for staff and visiting professionals.
“We were assured the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Some refresher training overdue
needs fixingSome staff refresher training had lapsed, partly because of the pandemic. Management had identified this and created an action plan, but families should check that it has been completed.
“Some refresher training was overdue (due to the pandemic), however, the management team had developed an action plan to address this.” from the report
- 01Has all the overdue refresher training now been completed, and how do you check that staff remain competent?
- 02How does the electronic care planning system ensure that changes in risks, incidents and people's needs are acted on promptly?
- 03How often are medicines audited, and what happens when an error is found?
- 04How are staffing levels managed when staff are off sick, and how does this affect personal care and showers?
- 05What changes have been made, or are planned, as the home moves towards a 24-hour care model?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Requires Improvement; inspectors found serious problems with medicines, staffing, safeguarding and management systems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 17 February 2021, gathered feedback from relatives and staff, and gave feedback to the manager on 24 February. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staffing information and quality checks.
The home was not always safe. Some medicines were recorded as given when they were still in blister packs. There were concerns about pressure ulcer prevention, personal hygiene, shared hoist slings and not having enough staff. Safeguarding incidents were not always reported or properly investigated.
The home’s systems for checking quality were not effective. Audits had not identified important problems, and lessons from earlier concerns had not led to lasting improvements. People said they felt safe and liked living there, and relatives spoke positively about staff and management.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. The inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and liked living in the home. Relatives were also positive about the care and support.
“People felt safe in the home and told us they liked living there.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including coronavirus outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Resident involvement
Residents’ meetings took place regularly, and actions from those meetings were displayed. Relatives said staff and management were approachable.
“Residents meetings were a regular occurrence in the home and minutes of these meetings with actions resulting displayed for everyone to read.” from the report
Medicines were not always given safely
seriousMedicine records sometimes showed doses as given when the medicines were still in blister packs. Storage, temperature checks and recording of administration times were also not always safe.
“We checked individual medicine administration records (MAR) against the tablets remaining in the blister packs and found that the MAR had been signed to indicate the medicines had been given, when it remained in the blister.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousInspectors found that staffing levels did not safely meet people’s needs. People were left waiting, and some care, transfers and bathing or showering were delayed.
“All staff we spoke with told us there was insufficient staff to ensure people received care and support safely and in a personalised way.” from the report
Safeguarding concerns were missed
seriousSome incidents were not reported to the manager or local safeguarding authority. They were not always investigated, and protection plans were not always put in place.
“The lack of response to safeguarding incidents and failing to develop protection plans and learn from incidents was a breach of regulation 13 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Pressure ulcer and hygiene risks
seriousSome people were not repositioned as their care plans required, and records showed that many people had few or no baths or showers during the period reviewed. Inspectors said this increased risks to skin health.
“Often this person laid in the same position for up to five hours.” from the report
Management checks did not drive improvement
seriousAudits did not identify important problems with staffing, safeguarding or medicines. Staff also reported gaps in supervision, role-related training and infection control knowledge.
“Systems and processes in place were not used effectively to ensure quality and safety of the care and support people needed.” from the report
- 01What has changed in medicine administration, storage and recording since this inspection?
- 02How many care staff are on duty for each unit and shift, and how is this matched to residents’ actual needs?
- 03How do you now make sure people are repositioned as required and receive their planned baths or showers?
- 04How are safeguarding incidents recorded, investigated and reported to the local safeguarding authority and the CQC?
- 05What evidence can you show that the warning notice and action plan have led to lasting improvements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 2021 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 Lodge Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.