CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Lodge
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Safeguarding concerns were not always identified, investigated or reported to the relevant agencies. Some health risk assessments and care plans were missing, although the registered manager said these had been put in place after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report. Inspectors did report that staff were caring, respected people's dignity and involved people in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report. Inspectors found that people were supported with activities, interests, choices and community links.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management oversight and quality checks did not reliably identify problems. Some required notifications were not sent to CQC, and governance systems were not consistently applied.
What inspectors found, December 2023
The Lodge rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring support, but safeguarding and management systems were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited on 24 and 25 October and 1 November 2023. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and policies.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that some safeguarding incidents were not identified, investigated or reported properly. Some health risk assessments and care plans were missing, and not all staff had completed required learning disability and autism training.
People were described as receiving warm, respectful and person-centred care. They were supported to make choices, take part in activities and use community facilities. Medicines were given as prescribed, but medicines audits did not always check enough areas to find possible problems.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2017. The report says the home started an action plan and made some changes during and after the inspection, but CQC will monitor progress and meet the provider to discuss further improvements.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff understood people well and supported them with warmth, compassion and dignity.
“Staff were caring and provided support to people with warmth, compassion and preserved their dignity.” from the report
People had a voice
People were involved in decisions about their lives and could raise views and concerns through regular meetings.
“People were listened to. Monthly 'Our Voice' meetings took place where people could share their wishes and concerns.” from the report
Community and activities
People were supported to pursue interests and take part in community life, including local clubs, churches and other activities.
“People living at the service were engaged in local community life, and enjoyed attending local churches, the bowls club and the village pub.” from the report
Medicines generally given correctly
Inspectors found no medicine errors and saw that records, storage and arrangements for some complex medicines were in place.
“Whilst there were no medicine errors identified, the audit in place did not always cover all areas” from the report
Safeguarding referrals
seriousNot all safeguarding matters were identified, investigated or reported to the right agencies. This meant chances to review safety and reduce risk were missed.
“Safeguarding referrals were not always completed. Whilst policies and processes were in place these were not sufficiently embedded into staff practice.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's checks did not reliably find problems with care plans, risk assessments and reporting. This was a breach of the governance regulation.
“Systems and processes were not effectively established to provide oversight and drive improvements required. This placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Training gaps
needs fixingSome staff had not completed mandatory training about learning disabilities and autism.
“We reviewed the training matrix and found some staff had not completed mandatory training on learning disabilities and autism.” from the report
Medicines audit gaps
needs fixingMedicines were given as prescribed, but the audit did not always cover enough areas to identify possible issues quickly.
“This meant opportunity to identify errors and prevent recurrence could be missed.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingIn three of the four staff files checked, gaps in employment history had not always been explored at interview.
“We reviewed 4 staff files and in 3 found gaps in employment were not always explored at interview.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure every safeguarding incident is identified, investigated and reported to the correct agency?
- 02How do you now check that each person's health conditions, including mental health needs, have a current risk assessment and care plan?
- 03What checks are now included in medicines audits, and how do you know that possible errors would be found quickly?
- 04Have all staff completed mandatory learning disability and autism training, and how is outstanding training monitored?
- 05What has changed in the provider's quality assurance system since the inspection, and can you show the latest audit or action plan?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were not inspected and the overall rating used previous ratings for those areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 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, November 2017
The Lodge is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, but noted some questions about choice over holidays and Bible study.
This was the first comprehensive inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 24 August 2017. Inspectors spoke with people using the service and staff, reviewed care and medicines records, checked recruitment and training records, and observed care and the home.
The inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable support with health and nutrition, and care that was kind and respectful.
People had access to work, training, hobbies and holidays. They were involved in care planning and reviews, and knew how to raise complaints. The home had a Christian lifestyle, with prayer, Bible study, church attendance and work expected of people living there.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff with the right training and experience. Medicines were stored and recorded safely, with checks designed to reduce errors.
“There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well and responded when they were upset or distressed. People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to remain independent.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Activities and opportunities
People could take part in work, training, hobbies, holidays and day trips. Their goals and interests were discussed in reviews.
“A range of activities and work based programmes were available.” from the report
Open management
Managers were described as visible and approachable. Meetings and quality checks helped the home listen to people and act on complaints.
“There was a positive and open culture.” from the report
Choice about activities
needs fixingThe report records that one person wanted more choice about where they went on holiday, while another had been reluctant to attend Bible study. The manager agreed to look into this.
“One person said they didn't get much choice about where they went on holiday and another person had been reluctant to go to Bible study.” from the report
Christian lifestyle expectations
minorPeople moving into the home were expected to follow its conservative evangelical Christian lifestyle. Families should check that this is right for their relative and understand how choice is supported.
“People who moved into the service would be expected to live their lives in this way.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure each person can choose whether to attend Bible study, prayer times and church?
- 02How are people involved in choosing holidays, and what happens if they do not want to join a planned trip?
- 03How do you support a person whose interests do not fit the usual work programme or activities?
- 04How will you show that the concerns about holiday choice and reluctance to attend Bible study have been followed up?
This was the first unannounced comprehensive inspection and covered all five rating areas, including care, records, staffing, medicines, activities and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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 Lodge
2 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 August 2016.
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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Rutland
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 £1,310 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
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.