Earlfield Lodge

Ratings

• Overall

  Requires improvement

• Safe

  Requires improvement

• Effective

  Requires improvement

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Requires improvement

• Well-led

  Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Earlfield Lodge is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care. This assessment commenced on 22 April 2024. The assessment included a visit to the service by 3 inspectors and an Expert by Experience on 30 April and 2 May 2024. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. This assessment was prompted due to concerns which were shared with us by the local authority. The service was in an organisational safeguarding process, with the local authority quality assurance team supporting the service. An embargo was in place and no admissions were being accepted. In the assessment, we looked at 8 quality statements; Safeguarding; Involving people to manage risks; Safe and effective staffing; Safe environment; Person-centred care; Assessing needs; Good governance and Learning, improvement and innovation. We identified 5 breaches of the legal regulations. Risks to people did not reflect people’s needs. Staff were not always recruited safely, as the appropriate checks were not carried out. The environment was in need of further improvement and some areas of the home remained outdated. Risks to people within the environment had not been minimised. Although people told us they received good care, improvements were needed to ensure care plans and records were person centred. Systems and audits required further improvements and needed to be embedded. The CQC has taken enforcement action against the provider. We have asked the provider for an action plan.

People's experience of this service

We received mixed feedback from people who lived at the service and their relatives. People told us they felt safe, were comfortable around staff and were able to raise any concerns. People told us they sometimes experienced delays in receiving care. When possible, people were involved in decisions which affected them and were supported to make choices about their care. People were aware that improvements had been made to the building. They felt there were ongoing issues with the building and decoration. People had access to activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and wellbeing. People were positive about how the service was managed.