CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at 3L Care Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing was sufficient, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were managed safely. The home was clean and staff understood how to safeguard people from harm.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- Care was based on detailed, individual assessments and worked towards clear outcomes. Inspectors found that staff skills, health professional input and tailored support had led to improvements in people's confidence, independence, communication and wellbeing.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They understood people's communication needs, supported their choices and helped them maintain relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people and families were involved in care planning. Activities were chosen with people and planned flexibly, although one family member wanted more specialist activity skills and better communication about activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive leadership, a clear management structure and a positive, person-centred culture. Audits, meetings and action plans were used to identify and make improvements.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good, with Outstanding effectiveness; inspectors found safe, kind, personalised care and strong outcomes.
This was a planned inspection on 19 March 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, safety checks and quality monitoring. They also spoke with family members and staff, and observed care because people could not give their views directly.
The home supports up to six adults with complex needs. Inspectors found detailed care plans, enough trained staff, safe medicines management and clean, well-maintained areas. People were supported to build confidence, communication, independence and social skills.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, and Outstanding for Effective. The previous inspection, published in September 2016, had also rated the home Good.
Improving people's lives
The home supported people to develop communication, independence, confidence and social skills. Inspectors found outcomes that were better than expected.
“People's outcomes were consistently better than expected compared to similar services.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans were highly personalised and set out people's needs, preferences and intended outcomes. Staff used this information to provide consistent support.
“Care plans were extremely detailed and identified intended outcomes for people.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
Risks were assessed and reviewed, staff were trained to protect people, and medicines records were completed correctly.
“Medicines were stored and managed safely by appropriately trained staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Families said staff were caring and treated their relatives well.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect and made sure personal information was kept private.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team promoted person-centred care and used audits, staff meetings and action plans to improve the service.
“Quality assurance systems were in place and used effectively to monitor key aspects of the service.” from the report
Activities and family updates
minorOne family member felt the home needed staff with more specific knowledge and skills for activities. They also wanted better communication about the activities their relative had taken part in.
“They also felt better communication was needed to update family members on the activities their relative took part in.” from the report
- 01How would you match staff skills and experience to my relative's specific needs?
- 02How are activities chosen, recorded and adapted when a person's needs or emotions change?
- 03How will you update our family about the activities and progress of our relative?
- 04How will our family be involved in care planning and regular reviews?
- 05How do you review incidents, risks and medicines to make sure lessons are acted on?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; people could not give their views directly, so inspectors used observation and spoke with family members and staff. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 2019 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no major shortfalls identified.
This was an announced inspection on 28 June 2016. One inspector observed care, spoke with four relatives and six staff, and reviewed three people's care records and management records. People using the service could not give their views directly.
The home supported up to six people with complex health needs, acquired brain injuries, and physical or learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, suitable training, personalised care records, and support with meals, health appointments and activities.
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. They found that people were treated with dignity, offered choices, supported to stay active, and helped to maintain contact with family and the wider community.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. This was the home's first inspection, so there was no previous rating to compare with.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support where required. Recruitment checks included DBS checks and references.
“Staff rotas indicated that staffing levels were consistent and that there were sufficient numbers of staff in place to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff were described as patient, kind and respectful. Inspectors saw laughter, warmth and reassurance when people became anxious or distressed.
“Positive relationships had been developed between staff and people using the service. Staff spoke kindly towards people and with affection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's communication needs, routines, likes, dislikes, health needs and the support staff should provide.
“People had a personalised care record in place which clearly outlined their needs, and what staff needed to do to support them.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities and trips, including walks, kayaking, day care, a holiday and social events.
“People were supported to engage in a range of activities and this was recorded.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Managers used care record, medicines, environment and infection control checks. Inspectors found that identified minor actions were followed up within the stated timescales.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided.” from the report
No formal feedback system
minorThe registered manager said there was no formal system for gathering feedback from people or relatives. Feedback was mainly given informally, although relatives said they could raise concerns.
“The registered manager informed us that there was no formal system of getting feedback from people or their relatives” from the report
- 01How will you collect and act on regular feedback from my relative and our family?
- 02How many staff will support my relative, including when one-to-one care is needed?
- 03How will you keep my relative's care record and risk assessments up to date?
- 04Which activities and community trips could my relative take part in?
- 05How will you support my relative with meals, fluids, medicines and appointments with health professionals?
This was a planned first inspection covering all five key questions, with observations, discussions with relatives and staff, and checks of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 2016 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.
Every inspection of 3L Care Limited
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 2014.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.