Source · CQC inspection
Lady Ida Lodge
Type Social Care Org
Region Yorkshire & Humberside
Last inspected 4 Mar 2023
Location rating: Requires Improvement View location on CQC
Location ratings by domain
Safe
Requires Improvement
Effective
Good
Caring
Requires Improvement
Responsive
Requires Improvement
Well-led
Requires Improvement
Most recent report indexed for actions
Type: Inspection report
Date: 26 January 2023
Rating extracted from this report: Requires Improvement
Actions indexed:
2 must-do
13 should-do
AI-extracted 17 Feb 2026
Earlier inspection findings
Must-do actions (2)
Must-do action 1 of 2
Must do
Responsive
The provider was not operating an effective system for identifying, receiving, recording, handling and responding to complaints.
Must-do action 2 of 2
Must do
Safe
People had not received a service consistent with their assessed care needs as they experienced late and missed calls.
Should-do actions (13)
Should-do action 1 of 13
Should do
Well-led
The oversight of these calls required improvement to ensure the system of recording was robust.
Should-do action 2 of 13
Should do
Well-led
The quality of supervision was identified by the provider as an area for improvement.
Should-do action 3 of 13
Should do
Well-led
Oversight of the service was an area for improvement.
Should-do action 4 of 13
Should do
Safe
One staff file showed a risk assessment was put in place, but this did not cover all relevant information.
Should-do action 5 of 13
Should do
Safe
Monitoring which was supposed to happen within the 48-hour period following a fall had not been completed. Accidents and incidents were not triggering a review of the risk assessment and associated care plan for this person.
Should-do action 6 of 13
Should do
Safe
One person was missing a body map for staff to record where a pain patch had been applied.
Should-do action 7 of 13
Should do
Effective
There were no written records to demonstrate staff received an induction.
Should-do action 8 of 13
Should do
Effective
Supervision records were brief and needed to show performance was being reviewed, praise for positive work was given and training needs were being identified. There were no records to show appraisals had been carried out.
Should-do action 9 of 13
Should do
Caring
Agency workers did not understand people or their needs, leading to mixed feedback about the quality of care.
Should-do action 10 of 13
Should do
Caring
A male worker arrived for a person's call, despite them having requested female workers.
Should-do action 11 of 13
Should do
Well-led
A staff file audited and passed as part of the provider's quality checks did not identify the issues CQC found.
Should-do action 12 of 13
Should do
Well-led
CQC was not confident that summary sheets reflected the care hours provided, despite daily records being audited.
Should-do action 13 of 13
Should do
Responsive
Feedback around communication showed improvements were needed, as people were not always informed when their calls were running late or not taking place.