CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Leonora Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place, including visitor checks, safe use of protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was a targeted infection control inspection and did not assess this question.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was a targeted infection control inspection and did not assess this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was a targeted infection control inspection and did not assess this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was a targeted infection control inspection and did not assess this question.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the targeted visit.
The inspection took place on 12 August 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted review of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks safely. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home supported contact between residents and relatives through video calls. It also offered staff mental health support and access to a hardship fund. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Contact with relatives
People and relatives were supported to keep in touch through video calls during lockdown. The provider bought a tablet so everyone could access video calling.
“Relatives and people were encouraged to use video calls to enable them to see each other during the lockdown period.” from the report
Visitor screening
Visitors completed a health questionnaire, had their temperature checked and provided contact details.
“A health screening questionnaire was completed before visitors entered the service.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, followed social distancing and shielding rules, and had arrangements for testing and outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Support for staff
Staff were offered help with anxiety, mental health and financial pressures during the lockdown period.
“Discussions were held with staff to reduce anxieties and the provider had ensured there were mental health services available for staff to use if needed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 12 August 2020?
- 02How do you now screen and manage visitors who may have an infection?
- 03How do you make sure residents can keep in contact with relatives when visits are restricted?
- 04What testing and outbreak arrangements are currently in place for residents and staff?
- 05What mental health and financial support is currently available to staff?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 2020 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, March 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a medicines stock check needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 8 February 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care records, medicines and management documents.
The home provides personal and nursing care for up to 16 people with long-term, complex mental health needs. Fourteen people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This means the inspection found good standards overall and that legal requirements were met. The previous rating was Requires Improvement, so this was an improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw calm, positive interactions. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy, independence and relationships.
“Staff treated people in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences and communication needs. People were offered choices about activities, food and their care.
“People were supported to express how they wished to receive their care and this was recorded in their care plans.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
People had healthcare plans and access to professionals such as opticians, dentists and chiropodists.
“People received a high level of access to healthcare professionals, for example; Opticians, Dentists, Chiropodists.” from the report
Responsive management
Managers monitored the service, acted when audits found improvements were needed and worked with other professionals.
“When quality audits identified areas of improvement the registered manager was quick to act on improvements being made.” from the report
Medicine records did not match stock
needs fixingThe number of some as-needed tablets held did not match the provider's records. Managers introduced daily checks immediately, but families should ask whether this process is still working reliably.
“The number of tablets held in stock did not match the providers records.” from the report
Feedback could be wider
minorThe home mainly gathered feedback through residents' meetings and conversations with relatives. The report says it planned to extend this to a wider audience.
“It was recognised that this could be improved and extended to a wider audience” from the report
Communal bathrooms planned for upgrade
minorThe home had plans to improve the communal bathrooms. The report does not say that this was a breach or give further detail about the condition.
“The service had plans in place to upgrade the communal bathrooms.” from the report
- 01What daily checks are now used for as-needed medicine stock, and have any further mismatches been found?
- 02What progress has been made with the planned upgrade to the communal bathrooms?
- 03How do you now gather feedback from a wider range of people and relatives?
- 04How would you support my relative's individual mental health, nursing and communication needs?
- 05How are people's activity choices and independence supported in day-to-day life?
This was an unannounced inspection of the home covering all five CQC questions, including care, medicines, staffing, records and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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.
Every inspection of Leonora Street
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.