CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Upper Ford Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and staff understood safeguarding, risks and medicines. Inspectors noted that topical cream information was kept in different files and that some risk guidance was not always reviewed or signed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff received relevant training, and health professionals' advice was followed. People had choices about food and support to maintain a healthy diet.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported them to make choices and become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported to follow their interests, maintain relationships and communicate in ways they could understand. The home had a complaints procedure and had received no complaints in the previous twelve months.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff understood their roles, worked as a team and used audits to look for improvements. The home worked closely with relatives and health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Upper Ford Lodge is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some records and building improvements still needed.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 04 February 2020. They spoke with one person, eight staff members, two relatives and two professionals. They also reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people looked happy and relaxed, with support tailored to their needs, choices and interests.
There were some smaller shortfalls. Information about topical creams was stored in different files, some risk records were not reviewed or signed, and some windows and doors needed refurbishment. The manager agreed to address these points.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 1 August 2017. This means the inspection found the home was meeting the required standards at the time of the visit.
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's communication, routines, preferences and risks. People were supported to make choices and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“Care plans were person centred, staff understood people's individual care requirements by meeting regularly with people and understanding what had and had not worked well and making changes where necessary.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that staff understood what mattered to each person, including when someone wanted privacy or time alone.
“People were relaxed and comfortable with staff. Staff were respectful and kind to people. We observed positive interactions.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked proactively with health professionals and relatives. This helped at least one person manage anxiety and take part in more activities.
“Health professionals told us the registered manager and staff team were proactive and followed guidance and advice offered.” from the report
Enough staff and relevant training
Staffing levels met people's needs, including one-to-one support when required. Staff received training in areas such as autism and epilepsy.
“Staff told us there was enough staff to care for people at times people wanted.” from the report
Topical cream records were split
minorInformation about topical creams was kept in different files. Inspectors said this could confuse staff, and the manager agreed to move the information into one file.
“We found people's body charts for topical creams information was stored in different files which could be confusing for staff.” from the report
Some risk records were not signed
needs fixingRisk guidance was available, but some records had not always been reviewed or signed. The manager agreed to review and sign them.
“Risks were assessed, and guidance for staff to be able to support people safely was in place. These were not always reviewed or signed.” from the report
Some parts of the building needed work
minorInspectors found that some windows and doors needed refurbishment. Some improvements had started, and the manager said they were working with the landlord.
“There were areas of the home in need of some refurbishment such as windows and doors.” from the report
Some records needed clearer organisation
minorThe manager was working to standardise paperwork and keep a log of correspondence while waiting for legal authorisations.
“We discussed the need for the registered manager to keep a log of correspondence when waiting for authorisations to be granted.” from the report
- 01Have the topical cream records now been brought together in one file, and how are staff told about changes?
- 02Have all risk assessments and guidance been reviewed and signed, and how often are they checked?
- 03What progress has been made with the windows and doors that needed refurbishment?
- 04How are agency staff used, and how do you maintain consistency when they are needed?
- 05How do you record and follow up correspondence about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care; all five ratings were reviewed and remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some agency staff still being used.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 15 June 2017. The inspector reviewed care records, medicines records, incident records, complaints systems, staff rotas, recruitment files and quality checks. They also observed care and spoke with people, relatives, staff and a provider representative.
The home supported eight people, although it was registered for up to 10. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support and staff training that matched people's needs. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, eat and drink well, and see health professionals.
Inspectors found kind and respectful relationships. Care was tailored to people's communication, wishes and changing needs. Relatives and staff described good communication and a positive culture. All five areas were rated Good, and the report says the service remained Good compared with its previous inspection.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to support people, with permanent staff helping agency workers understand people's needs. Medicines were given when needed and records were clear.
“We saw staff had enough time to help people when they needed, in the ways they preferred.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was adapted to people's communication, preferences and changing needs. People were encouraged to make choices and develop independence.
“People's care was tailored to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed with staff, and relatives described staff as kind and committed. Privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“People were treated with respect and dignity.” from the report
Positive leadership
Staff and relatives described good communication and an open culture. The provider and managers carried out regular checks and acted on identified improvements.
“The provider, registered manager and manager checked the quality of the care offered through meetings with people, relatives and by using pictorial questionnaires.” from the report
Use of agency staff
minorThere had been some staff changes and agency staff were being used. The manager was recruiting more staff to reduce this, although agency workers were supported by permanent staff.
“Staff knew the manager was currently recruiting additional staff, with a view to reducing the number of agency staff used.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff now work at the home, and how much agency cover is currently needed?
- 02How are agency staff introduced to each person's care needs, communication style and preferences?
- 03Has the manager become the registered manager since the inspection?
- 04How are relatives involved when a person's care needs or behaviour changes?
- 05What improvements have resulted from the provider's audits and action plans since this inspection?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the inspector observed care, spoke with people and relatives, and reviewed selected records and quality systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 August 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 Upper Ford Lodge
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 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 Worcestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.