Gibson's Lodge Limited
Care home with nursing, Croydon, 53 beds
Requires improvement
Rated on
Rating from the Care Quality Commission.
Gibson's Lodge Limited: inspection record
Rated Requires improvement in June 2026, down from Good.
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | ||||||||||||
| Safe | ||||||||||||
| Effective | ||||||||||||
| Caring | ||||||||||||
| Responsive | ||||||||||||
| Well-led |
Ratings published by the Care Quality Commission.
Inspected and rated 9 times since 2015. First rated Requires improvement in 2015, most recently Requires improvement in June 2026.
Its last inspection moved it down from Good to Requires improvement. The latest rating was published 4 months ago.
How it compares locally
- One of 10 Requires improvement care homes in Croydon, out of 112 with a rating.
- Larger than 8 in 10 care homes in Croydon.
What inspectors found
From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 5 June 2026 (assessment visit 23 January 2026). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.
We carried out an assessment of this service on 10 and 11 February 2026.
Gibson’s Lodge is a nursing home that provides personal care and support to older people, many of whom live with dementia. At the time of the inspection, 42 people were using the service. The service is registered to support up to 53 people; however, parts of the building was closed for renovation and therefore the provider had restricted occupancy to 43. The home operates across three floors and includes adapted facilities and en-suite rooms.
Read the full summary
We carried out this assessment to follow up and review progress since the last inspection in July 2022
The provider recognised shortfalls in people’s care records and was working with the local authority to improve care. The provider was open about the difficulties it faced and drew on external support to address them.
At the time of the assessment a new, consultant management team had just started at the service. This was expected to strengthen governance, oversight and leadership capacity.
We saw good examples of kind and caring interactions between people and staff.
However, the provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to staffing levels, person centred care, the need for consent, safe care and treatment and good governance. The provider had not established effective governance systems to assess, monitor and manage risks to people’s health, safety and welfare. Staff did not consistently assess or manage risks. Care plans lacked clear guidance on managing risks linked to people diagnosed health conditions, and the provider did not carry out robust assessments of people’s needs.
The provider did not ensure staff completed mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
The provider did not ensure the safe management and storage of medicines. Guidance for ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines did not consistently include clear protocols or person-centred information. This placed people at risk of unsafe administration.
The provider did not ensure staff delivered consistently evidence-based care and treatment. People did not always receive meaningful activities. Staff did not review clinical monitoring tools in a timely way.
The provider did not follow safe recruitment practices. The service did not always deploy enough staff to meet people’s needs. People told us staffing levels sometimes affected their care. Staff reported they worked under pressure due to staffing shortages
The provider did not ensure care was consistently person-centred. Staff delivered care in a task-led way. Staff did not always plan activities in line with people’s individual interests or hobbies. Activity plans were not consistently personalised. This limited opportunities for meaningful engagement.
Staff did not always respond to call bells promptly, which meant people’s needs were not always met in a timely way
The provider did not ensure the environment met the needs of people living with dementia. The design and layout did not support people to move around the home independently.
Staff and managers interacted with people in a kind, caring, and respectful way. People spoke positively about staff, although some raised concerns about staffing levels.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
We have also asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
-
Safe
No rating
Safe
Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.
The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment and the ways people’s medicines were managed safely at the service
-
Effective
No rating
Effective
Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.
This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.
The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care and need for consent.
-
Caring
No rating
Caring
Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.
The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to, people’s safe care and treatment.
-
Responsive
No rating
Responsive
Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.
At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.
The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.
-
Well-led
No rating
Well-led
Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.
At our last assessment we rated this key good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.
Requires improvement: This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.
The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance.
Questions to ask when you visit
- Safe was rated Requires improvement on 5 June 2026. Ask how medicines are managed, how staffing levels are decided and how incidents are reviewed.
- Effective was rated Requires improvement on 5 June 2026. Ask about staff training and how health appointments are arranged.
- Caring was rated Requires improvement on 5 June 2026. Ask how staff protect dignity and how residents are involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive was rated Requires improvement on 5 June 2026. Ask to see how care plans are kept up to date, how complaints are handled and what activities are on offer.
- Ask how nursing cover works at night and at weekends.
Contact and registration details
| Address | Gibson's Hill, London, SW16 3ES |
|---|---|
| Neighbourhood | Norbury, Croydon |
| Phone | 020 8670 4098 |
| Website | www.primecaregroup.co.uk |
| Registered manager | Veronica Joseph |
| Registered with the CQC since | |
| What it provides |
|
| Who it supports |
|
| Inspection reports | 11 inspection reports, latest 15 July 2022 (opens the Care Quality Commission website) Latest assessment published 5 June 2026; CQC's newer assessments are published on its website rather than as reports. |
Inspection report
Read the full inspection report (opens the Care Quality Commission website)The rating is the Care Quality Commission's. We show it as published and do not change it.
Who runs it
| Provider | Gibson's Lodge LimitedBrand: Prime Care Group |
|---|---|
| Ownership type | Organisation |
| Companies House number | 02220546 (opens Companies House) |
Nearest alternatives
- RI British Home & Hospital for Incurables Care home with nursing, 0.2 miles awayRequires improvement
- G Beulah Vista Care Home Care home with nursing, 0.3 miles awayGood
- G Uplands Care Home Care home with nursing, 0.5 miles awayGood
- RI Joybrook Care home, 0.6 miles awayRequires improvement
- G Minehead Care home, 0.6 miles awayGood
Getting help from London Borough of Croydon
The council can assess what care someone needs and tell them what help with the cost they may get.
- Adult social care at London Borough of Croydon
- Ask for a care needs assessment
- Phone: 0208 726 6500
- Support for carers
- Care home fee rates published by the council
Checked on the council's website, November 2026.
Common questions
- Does Gibson's Lodge Limited provide nursing care?
- Yes. The Care Quality Commission lists Gibson's Lodge Limited as a care home with nursing.
- How many beds does Gibson's Lodge Limited have?
- The Care Quality Commission's register lists 53 beds at Gibson's Lodge Limited.
- When was Gibson's Lodge Limited last inspected?
- The Care Quality Commission's latest rating for Gibson's Lodge Limited was published on 5 June 2026.
- Who runs Gibson's Lodge Limited?
- Gibson's Lodge Limited is run by Gibson's Lodge Limited.
- What is Gibson's Lodge Limited's CQC rating?
- Its overall rating from the Care Quality Commission is Requires improvement, published on 5 June 2026.