CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cross Lane House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention measures, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visitor arrangements and outbreak planning. They were only somewhat assured that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date, and found no individual COVID-19 risk assessments for people or staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Cross Lane House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection controls, but individual COVID-19 risk assessments were missing.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 12 April 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than the home's overall quality.
Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, admissions and plans for managing an outbreak. People could have visits in controlled settings and keep in touch with relatives by phone and video calls.
The home had enough personal protective equipment and staff knew how to use it. However, the infection control policy was not fully up to date, and individual COVID-19 risk assessments had not been completed for people or staff.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Safe visiting
Visits were managed through testing, temperature checks, protective equipment, separate access and cleaning between visits. People could also use phone and video calls to stay in touch.
“Visitors had a lateral flow test and temperature check before coming into the home and used a separate entrance.” from the report
PPE and staff training
Staff used protective equipment in line with guidance and had training in putting it on and taking it off safely.
“Staff were wearing personal protective equipment in line with government guidance and the registered manager had kept staff up to date with the changes in recommendations that had occurred throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans for managing a COVID-19 outbreak, including isolating people and covering staffing shortages.
“The registered manager had clear plans in place for how to support people safely in the event of an outbreak of COVID-19.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy, with staff cleaning frequently touched surfaces.
“The home was clean and tidy and all staff were responsible for cleaning frequently touched surfaces such as the lift buttons and door handles.” from the report
Missing individual risk assessments
needs fixingPeople and staff did not have individual assessments showing whether they were at increased risk from COVID-19. The manager said these would be put in place after the inspection.
“People and staff did not have individual risk assessments in place to identify whether they would be at increased risk from COVID-19.” from the report
Policy needed updating
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date. They signposted the provider to resources to improve its approach.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
- 01Have individual COVID-19 risk assessments now been completed for every person living at the home and every member of staff?
- 02Has the infection prevention and control policy been updated since this inspection?
- 03How are visitors currently tested, checked and protected during visits?
- 04What is the current plan for isolating someone who returns from hospital or tests positive for COVID-19?
- 05What arrangements are in place to cover staffing if an outbreak affects staff numbers?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 2021 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 2019
Cross Lane House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 July 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with seven people, four relatives or friends and six staff. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training, clean surroundings and good links with health professionals.
People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and welcoming. Staff knew people well, supported personal choices and helped people stay connected with their interests and relationships.
The overall rating had stayed Good since the previous inspection, published on 7 January 2017. The report says some staff were not always completing records correctly, but extra training had been provided and recording had improved.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough suitable staff to care for people safely. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were enough suitable staff to care for people safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's routines, preferences and interests. People were supported to make choices about how they lived.
“Staff knew people well and care was provided in a personalised way.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed kind, respectful support and attention to privacy and dignity.
“We observed staff speaking to people in a kind and respectful way throughout the inspection.” from the report
Good health support
People were supported to access health services, and records showed regular involvement from professionals such as speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and district nurses.
“People told us they were supported to access the health care services they needed.” from the report
Involving people
People and relatives were involved in meetings, care decisions and changes at the home. Their suggestions could lead to improvements.
“People and their relatives told us communication with staff was effective.” from the report
Some records were incomplete
needs fixingInspectors found that some staff were not always completing records correctly. The manager had provided extra training and said recording had improved.
“additional training was provided for staff members who were not always completing records correctly.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that staff complete all care and other records correctly?
- 02What evidence can you show that the improvement in record-keeping has continued?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty for the number and needs of people living here?
- 04How are people's personal routines, interests and preferences recorded and kept up to date?
- 05How are relatives involved in care reviews and decisions about changes at the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that considered all five CQC questions, including care, staffing, medicines, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 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 Cross Lane House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 January 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.