CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Lodge Retirement Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Infection prevention and control arrangements were also judged suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's consent was obtained and recorded. Staff had the skills and training needed, and worked with health professionals when people's needs changed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were offered choices and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, needs and preferences. Activities had improved, people could keep in touch with family and friends, and communication needs were identified.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had robust audits and monitoring systems. Inspectors found a positive culture and evidence that the service learned from incidents and acted on audit findings.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection. Two inspectors visited on 14 December 2022 and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, staffing rotas, incident records and management checks. They spoke with six people, two relatives, six staff and three health and social care professionals.
Inspectors found people were safe and supported by enough staff. Medicines, risks, infection control and recruitment were managed well. People received kind care, were treated with dignity and had choices about their support.
Activities had improved and were linked to people's interests. Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. The home had effective checks to monitor quality and learn from incidents.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good. The previous rating was Requires Improvement in 2019, with breaches relating to risk management, medicines and quality monitoring. Inspectors found enough improvement and said the home was no longer in breach.
Safe medicines
Medicines records matched stock balances and staff followed safe procedures. Medicines were stored in each person's bedroom, with temperature checks completed correctly.
“Medicines were managed safely and administered by trained staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind, listened to them and respected their privacy. Staff supported people to make choices and remain independent.
“People's privacy and dignity were respected.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities had improved and reflected people's culture, history and interests. People could join group activities or take part in activities in their bedrooms.
“Activities were reflective of people's culture, history and interests.” from the report
Strong oversight
The registered manager and provider used audits covering areas such as medicines, care plans, falls and infection control. They tracked actions and shared learning with staff.
“Improvements had been made and quality assurance systems were operating effectively.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep the improved activities programme going, including activities for people who prefer to stay in their bedrooms?
- 02How are medicines stored and checked in each person's bedroom, and how do you make sure errors are avoided?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed with the person, their family and health professionals?
- 04What staffing levels are normally planned for different times of day, and how do you respond when staff are absent?
- 05How will you tell families about actions from audits, incidents or complaints that affect their relative?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the 2019 Requires Improvement report, and it also included infection prevention and control checks under the Safe question. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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, August 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but serious weaknesses in medicines, risk management and oversight.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 6 and 7 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with six people, one relative and eight staff. They reviewed care and medicine records, recruitment files and records about quality and management.
People generally said they felt safe, were happy living in the home and received kind and respectful care. Staff knew people well, meals were well regarded and people were supported to access health professionals.
However, medicines records were incomplete and medicines were not always managed safely. Some risks, including risks linked to health conditions, malnutrition and dehydration, had not been properly assessed. Records of fire and legionella checks were also incomplete.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. The previous overall rating was Good in October 2016, so the rating had fallen.
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind and compassionate. Inspectors observed staff treating people with dignity and respect and supporting their independence.
“Our observations of staff interactions with people showed that people were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.” from the report
Staff knew people well
The home had a consistent staff team, with many staff having worked there for a long time. This helped staff understand people's likes, dislikes and support needs.
“There was a long standing and consistent staff team, as such people were supported by staff that knew them well and agency staff were not used.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were positive about the food and were offered choices. Records showed that healthcare needs were monitored and medical advice was sought when needed.
“People were positive about the meals they received. Comments included, "The food is very good," "I like the meals, I like plain old-fashioned food," and, "The food is brilliant, a la carte.” from the report
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse. Call bells were answered without delay during the inspection.
“People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs and staff responded promptly to their requests for support.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousThere were unexplained gaps in medicine records, tablet-count discrepancies and missing guidance for medicines given when needed. Some creams were not used as prescribed, and medicine checks had not found these problems.
“The management of medicines was not always safe.” from the report
Risks were not fully recorded
seriousSome people's risks, including malnutrition, dehydration, skin breakdown and health conditions, had not been assessed. Fire and water-system safety records were also incomplete.
“Some people were at increased risk of malnutrition, dehydration and skin breakdown but these risks had not been assessed.” from the report
Quality monitoring was weak
seriousThe provider had not identified all the problems found by inspectors and had limited audits and no clear action plans before the inspection. Records about people's care were not always complete.
“The provider had not ensured that there were effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service, to drive improvements and to ensure compliance with the Regulations.” from the report
Activities were limited
needs fixingActivities were not frequent, creative or personalised enough. Many people spent most of their time in their rooms, and there was little stimulation at other times.
“Although there was an activities programme in place, we found that activities needed improvement to be more creative, person centred and frequent.” from the report
Mental capacity records were unclear
seriousCapacity assessments and information about specific decisions were missing for some people. Inspectors were concerned that one person might have been deprived of their liberty without the necessary legal authorisation.
“This meant that people could potentially be unlawfully deprived of their liberty.” from the report
Staffing needed a formal check
needs fixingThe provider did not use a systematic method to work out how many staff were needed for people's changing needs. People said staffing was enough, but some staff said two workers were not always sufficient in the afternoon.
“The provider did not use a formal system to determine the numbers of staff required taking into account the needs and dependency of people in the home.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent gaps in medicine records, check tablet counts and review medicines given when needed?
- 02How are each person's risks, including diabetes, malnutrition, dehydration and skin breakdown, assessed and reviewed?
- 03How do you decide how many staff are needed at different times, including when someone needs support from two staff?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments and any required legal authorisations recorded and kept up to date?
- 05What activities and outings are now offered, and how are they adapted to each person's interests and preferred times?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous Good ratings for each question were reassessed, with Caring remaining Good and the other four ratings falling to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 2019 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 Retirement Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.