Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home

Imperial Lodge

268 Lansbury Drive, Hayes, UB4 8SN

Goodpublished 13 August 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, March 2024

Imperial Lodge is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in staffing, recruitment and management, although people's care plans and medicines were generally handled well.

This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 24 January 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people and staff, and checked care records, medicines, staff files, rotas, complaints and quality checks.

The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in recruitment checks, staff training, induction, supervision and staffing levels. The home relied heavily on agency staff without showing that they had suitable training or induction.

Responsive was rated Good. People's care plans were detailed and regularly updated. People were supported with healthcare, daily living skills, activities and plans for moving on. Medicines were administered safely, although staff medicine skills were not assessed regularly.

The previous overall rating was Good in 2018. This inspection was prompted partly by a serious incident and did not examine that incident because it was subject to a criminal investigation. The provider was required to submit an action plan, and CQC issued a warning notice about governance.

What inspectors praised
  • Detailed risk plans

    People had clear risk assessments and plans telling staff how to reduce risks at home and in the community.

    People's individual risk assessments were detailed, clear and comprehensive.from the report
  • Safe medicines administration

    Medicines were given as prescribed, records were completed properly and stocks matched the records. Staff competency checks were not regular, so this should still be discussed.

    People's medicines were managed safely to help ensure people received their medicines as prescribed and in line with national guidance.from the report
  • Personalised care planning

    Care plans reflected people's wishes, strengths and goals. They were reviewed as people's needs changed.

    People's needs were met in line with their wishes and preferences.from the report
  • Support with independence

    People were supported to build daily living skills, use the community, cook, clean and work towards greater independence.

    People were supported to maintain their independence and gain new skills.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Recruitment checks

    serious

    The home could not show that all staff had been checked properly before working there. Some files lacked references, induction records or other recruitment information.

    The provider had not always followed appropriate procedures for recruiting staff.from the report
  • Staffing and training

    serious

    There were not enough suitably trained permanent staff, and the home relied on agency staff. The provider could not show that new or temporary staff had received suitable induction, supervision or competency checks.

    The provider relied on agency staff to cover staff vacancies but had not ensured these temporary staff were trained to meet the needs of the people who used the service.from the report
  • Weak safety monitoring

    serious

    Health and safety, infection control and incident audits had stopped or were irregular. The home also did not show that it had reflected properly on a serious incident or other events.

    The provider did not have effective arrangements to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people and staff.from the report
  • Limited contact with the manager

    needs fixing

    Some people and staff said they had little contact with the registered manager. One person said they did not really like living at the home and wanted to move on.

    One person who used the service told us they never saw the registered manager.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What action has been taken to make sure every new staff member has completed recruitment checks, induction and competency checks before working with residents?
  2. 02How many permanent staff are currently in post, and how do you make sure agency staff are trained for people's mental health and support needs?
  3. 03How often are staff now supervised and assessed in de-escalation, emotional support and medicines management?
  4. 04What changes have been made to health and safety, infection control and incident audits since the inspection?
  5. 05How do staff learn about each resident's interests, goals and worries, and how often can residents speak with the registered manager?

This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and the overall rating used previous ratings for those areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 2024 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Imperial Lodge

5 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. March 2024Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Imperial Lodge

  2. February 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. March 2018Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. September 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. January 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. April 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. December 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. January 2012

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 2012.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Nearby

Other care homes near Hayes

Alvina Lodge

Hayes, UB4 · 1.2 km
Good
Residential
Rated 17 months agocare home