- Homecare service
Cera Castleham Lodge
Assessment report published 15 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 20 August 2026 to 20 September 2026. The inspection was undertaken to assess if the provider had complied with a previous enforcement notice served on 9 January2026 for failing to meet the regulation relating to good governance.
Cera Castleham Lodge is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes in an extra care scheme. This means the agency provides personal care visits to people living in their own flats but in one building. Not everyone using the service received a regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care' such as help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating.
The service had made improvements since our last assessment and is no longer in breach of regulations.
People described staff as kind and caring and that they would do anything for them. They did talk about how staff seemed very busy and reported on repeated occasions they were left for short periods during a visit or had to delay completion of personal care. People’s comments included, “The staff are lovely but they sometimes leave me mid visit to answer a bell”, “They [the staff] come on time but often they have to go and answer a bell in case its an emergency. It slows down my day as I’m fairly independent once I’m ready” and “It really upsets me when staff are so busy, they have to go and I have to wait.” This was whilst staff answered a Peace of Mind call. This was a scheme including people other than those receiving Cera support within the building, could call for assistance using a pendant. However, people did not all fully understand the difference between a domiciliary care visit and the Peace of Mind service. The Peace of Mind service was sometimes being used inappropriately for tasks such as picking up an item, moving an item and opening the main front door. These tasks impacted on the availability of care staff.
There were now robust governance processes and oversight in place and any issues remaining were related to the culture that had evolved around understanding of the nature of the extra care scheme. There was a new manager in place supported by the regional manager. They were also advertising for a scheme manager which would increase staff availability to assist with calls from the office. There had been group and individual meetings with staff, and people using the service to discuss how the service worked and manage expectations for the future. Some staff and staff not working for Cera Castleham Lodge in the building we spoke to had not understood the service was not a care home but a domiciliary care service within an Extra Care Housing setting.
Rotas had been planned to ensure regular visits for people and breaks for staff. The service currently did not use agency staff, so people received consistencywith a regular staff team. There were no missed visits. Management were now monitoring the Peace of Mind service calls which had not been done before. This meant they could measure the reason for calls and how long they took. Personal care visits continued to be sometimes interrupted or delayed but staff were doing what they could whilst managing the Peace of Mind service. They said, “It’s so busy, a bell can go at any time and make us behind in visits or have to leave someone for a while.” This monitoring meant the provider, Cera, could have open conversations about how the scheme could be managed more effectively inthe future. Risk assessments and care plans had been reviewed to ensure they included what people needed and what was funded for.
Staff were up to date with their training, including Deprivation of Liberty and the Mental Capacity Act. Staff supervisions were taking place regularly and were ongoing. They included discussing how the extra care and Peace of Mind scheme worked. They were getting used to an out of hours on call system based at Cera HQ and could call a manager for additional support. Complaints were well managed well, some related to how the scheme was working. As a result, the new manager had met individually with some people to give clear explanations and reassurance.
A core group of staff had stayed who knew people welland remained committed to the extra care scheme. New staff were working well following induction. There had been some issues with a lack of breaks on the rota, but management told us this had been due tostaff sickness and was being resolved.
The management team told us they wanted to provide a good quality service and were trying to provide clear communication to people and staff about how the scheme worked. There were some vacancies at Castleham Lodge and the regional manager felt that when these were filled, along with the role of the scheme manager, they could add more staff to the rota and alleviate some of the pressures. It had been a difficult time, but the provider had done what they could to ensure staff knew what they were doing and people were receiving appropriate safe care.
People's experience of this service
People said they felt safe with the current staff group. Despite some staff leaving, there was a consistent core staff group. New staff had got to know people using up to date care plans. The service was no longer using agency staff.
People told us again they were saddened by the loss of experienced staff since the service had been taken over by the current provider. One person said, “I had known the staff for a long time. They were too busy, it upset me.” They talked about there not being enough care staff. However, some people did not understand how the extra care scheme worked. For example, the service was not a care home and therefore did not have staff in place to answer their call bells for general tasks. There were enough staff to provide the domiciliary care visits. People said, “Staff come on time and they know what to do”. One person said, “I have a little bit of help and I’m all ready to go. I have no problems.”
People said staff were kind and knew what they were doing although they remained frustrated when staff had to pop out to answer a Peace of Mind call bell during a visit. The provider recognised some people misunderstood the Peace of Mind service and were using coffee morning discussions to help manage people’s expectations.
People were happy with staff practice around infection control. People who spoke with us about the service, generally managed their own medicines and had no concerns. They said staff asked for their consent before they carried out personal care tasks, and we saw staff gaining consent before they entered people’s flats.
People told us the provider was listening to their concerns, although people were not always happy with the explanations about how the scheme worked. The regional manager was very supportive and understood the issues. They were pro-actively trying to gain people and staff trust. Governance processes had been put in place so there was a clear picture of the service and issues could be identified.
However, Cera Castleham Lodge have a contract called Peace of Mind which affected the experience of some people adversely. Thisservice was available to all 50 people living in the building for a fee regardless of their care needs. This means they were able to access a call bell system for emergency assistance 24 hours a day. Over time there has been some blurring in the expectations and understanding of people and staffabout the purpose of the Peace of Mind service which impacted on how people talked about the service. For example, staff responded to requests for help which did not always meet the criteria resulting in high expectations and a high number of calls. Staff were therefore very busy, and people sometimes had to wait or were left during a personal care visit whilst a staff member answered a Peace of Mind call. Staffing levels were calculated based on personal care visit hours and the Cera Castleham Lodge office staff role. There was no separate Peace of Mind scheme care team. Cera Castleham Lodge management team had met with staff and people within the building to promote better understanding and communication and continued to do so. They were reviewing peoples’ needs to ensure they could be met within an Extra Care Housing Scheme and working with commissioners.