CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Warren Residential Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe. Risks, medicines, recruitment, infection control and emergency arrangements were managed appropriately. Inspectors received mixed feedback about staffing levels during the peak leave period, although they found enough staff during their visits.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were skilled and supported, and new staff completed a comprehensive induction. Some training was not up to date under the provider's policy, but staff showed suitable knowledge and this did not pose a risk during the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. They protected privacy, encouraged independence, supported people's cultural and religious needs, and involved people in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and plans contained detailed information about people's routines, preferences and support needs. Staff responded to changes and complaints were investigated promptly. Most people had access to activities and stimulation.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, an open culture and robust audits. The provider had acted on the previous governance breach, and inspectors found the service was no longer in breach.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff training gaps and mixed views about staffing.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 21 and 24 August 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, staff rotas and quality checks, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's needs and preferences, and care plans gave detailed guidance.
Inspectors found safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments, enough staff during the inspection, personalised care, suitable food and access to healthcare. There were mixed comments about staffing during a busy holiday period, and some staff training was not up to date, although inspectors found staff understood their roles.
The previous inspection in July 2017 rated the service Requires Improvement overall and found a breach relating to good governance. At this inspection, the provider had taken appropriate action and was no longer in breach.
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships and treated people with dignity. Inspectors saw staff speak patiently, use preferred names and protect privacy.
“Without exception, all interactions we observed between people were positive and supportive.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's routines, choices, health needs and preferred ways of receiving support. Staff knew people well and encouraged independence.
“The new format was well organised and provided comprehensive information to enable staff to deliver care and support in a personalised way.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Individual and environmental risks were assessed, with clear instructions for staff.
“Medicines were managed and administered safely. They were ordered, stored and disposed of correctly.” from the report
Improved leadership and monitoring
The provider had addressed the governance problems found at the previous inspection. Audits were being used to identify issues and take action.
“At this inspection, we found sufficient action had been taken and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People praised the food and were offered choices and help to eat and drink. Staff contacted health professionals when needed and followed their advice.
“People praised the standard of care delivered and the quality of the meals.” from the report
Training records not fully up to date
needs fixingSome staff training had not been updated in line with the provider's policy. Inspectors did not find this created a risk at the time, but the manager had identified the gaps and planned further training.
“We identified that some staff training was not up to date in line with the provider's policy” from the report
Activities and stimulation
minorThe home offered activities, but inspectors observed most people watching television or following their own interests in lounges or bedrooms. Families may wish to ask how activities are tailored for people who need more support to take part.
“During the inspection, we observed most people were either sat in the main lounge or in their bedrooms watching television or pursuing their own interests.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff during staff holidays and other busy periods?
- 02Which staff training is currently overdue, and when will it be completed?
- 03How do you identify activities that suit my relative's interests, abilities and level of support?
- 04How will you keep me informed if my relative's health, needs or preferences change?
- 05What improvements were made after the previous breach relating to good governance, and how are they checked now?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, including care, staffing, medicines, the premises and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 October 2018 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, July 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, effective and caring support, but care records, activities and quality checks needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 28 June 2017. They spoke with people, visitors, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
People generally felt safe and were cared for kindly. Staff knew people well, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient, and people received suitable food and support from health professionals.
The main problems were that some care records were not updated on time, some people wanted more activities, and the home's checks did not always identify or follow up problems. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Caring were rated Good. Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given by trained staff and records showed no gaps in the medicine administration records. Storage and auditing were also described as safe.
“Medicines were administered, stored and managed in a safe and effective manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them as individuals. Inspectors saw calm, patient support that protected privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were cared for in a kind and compassionate way.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff responded promptly and worked as a stable team.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs of people during our inspection.” from the report
Food and health support
Meals were freshly prepared and matched people's needs and preferences. Health and social care professionals were involved when needed.
“People received nutritious and well-presented meals in line with their needs and preferences.” from the report
Care records not always current
needs fixingCare plans were personalised but had not always been reviewed and updated monthly. This meant records did not always reflect people's current needs.
“However these had not always been reviewed and updated every month as required by the registered provider's policy.” from the report
Limited activities for some people
needs fixingSome people and a visitor said there were not enough activities or entertainment. Others felt the activities were sufficient.
“Some people did not feel there were sufficient suitable activities available in the home.” from the report
Weak checks and learning from incidents
seriousThe home recorded accidents and falls but did not analyse them for patterns or show what had been learned to reduce future risks. Some audit actions were also not shown as completed.
“There was no information to show how this was shared with staff to prevent further recurrence in the home.” from the report
Outstanding repair follow-up
needs fixingA shower cubicle was repeatedly listed as needing repair, but the records did not show whether the required action had been completed.
“In a regular monthly audit to 19 June 2017 the shower cubicle continued to be identified as in need of repair.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure every person's care plan is reviewed and updated on time?
- 02What activities and entertainment are now available for people who want more to do?
- 03How do you review falls and other incidents for patterns, and how do you share learning with staff?
- 04Has the shower cubicle repair been completed, and how are outstanding repairs now tracked?
- 05What changes have you made to the audit system since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality questions and was the first inspection under a new registered provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 July 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 Warren Residential Lodge
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Warren Residential Lodge →
- July 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Warren Residential Lodge →
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 June 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
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.