CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Heartlands Care Limited t/a Lanrick House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and risks were assessed. Staff were safely recruited and there were enough staff, but inspectors made recommendations about guidance for 'when required' medicines and medicine fridge temperature records.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supported people to make choices. People had access to healthcare, received suitable food and drink, and had care plans for their health needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, supported independence and involved people in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care and activities were highly personalised. The home used creative ways to maintain family contact and offered a wide range of group and individual activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture and people felt able to approach managers. Quality checks, audits and an action plan were used to monitor safety and improvements, although the registered number of people was being reconsidered because there were fewer bedrooms.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found exceptionally responsive care, with some medicines and capacity records needing attention.
Inspectors visited without warning on 23 December 2020 and 15 January 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records, incident records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were kind, medicines were given as prescribed, and people had good access to food, activities and healthcare.
The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives during COVID-19 restrictions. It offered varied activities, including individual activities and themed events. Inspectors also found that the home took complaints seriously and supported people to make choices about their care.
Some improvements were made during or after the inspection. These included updating guidance for 'when required' medicines, recording medicine fridge temperatures, making cleaning records clearer and stopping use of a shared biscuit box.
Family contact
The home used newsletters, social media, messaging, video calls and outdoor visits to help people stay connected with relatives during restrictions.
“People had been supported to maintain contact with their loved ones, despite restrictions being in place due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered varied activities based on their interests, including one-to-one activities, themed days and links with a local school.
“There were regular 'themed' days, such as a 'Mexican Day' or an 'Irish Day' and they would eat food, wear and do activities associated with each theme.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring interactions. Relatives and a health professional said staff treated people kindly and with respect.
“A health professional told us staff were 'extremely' kind and caring towards people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about their care, food, surroundings and communication. Staff also supported some people to regain or keep their independence.
“People were able to make decisions about their care and their independence was supported.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff felt able to approach managers. The home used audits, reviews and an action plan to monitor care and safety.
“There was a range of quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Medicine instructions
needs fixingInstructions for some 'when required' medicines did not always give staff enough information about when the medicine might be needed. The guidance was updated after inspectors raised this.
“People who had 'when required' medicines did not always have enough information in their protocols to help staff identify when they may need their medicines.” from the report
Medicine fridge checks
needs fixingThe home was not recording the minimum and maximum temperatures for the medicine fridge. This was corrected after inspectors gave feedback.
“The minimum and maximum temperature for the medicines fridge was not being recorded so it was not being checked that the medicines had remained stored in a safe temperature range.” from the report
Registered capacity
needs fixingThe home was registered for up to 32 people but had 23 bedrooms. The provider was reconsidering how it could meet people's needs if the number of residents increased.
“They were registered for up to 32 people however there were 23 bedrooms only.” from the report
Infection control details
minorInspectors asked for clearer cleaning records and raised concern about people sharing a biscuit box. The practice was changed after feedback.
“We discussed with the registered manager the cleaning records being clearer and the use of a shared biscuit box with people putting their hands to choose their biscuits.” from the report
- 01How are 'when required' medicines now described, including the signs that should lead staff to offer them?
- 02How are medicine fridge temperatures recorded and checked now?
- 03How many people can live here under the current registration, and how would you manage safely if numbers increased?
- 04What activities and ways of keeping in touch with relatives are available now?
- 05How are care plans and personal life histories kept up to date and used by staff?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, with specific infection prevention and control checks under Safe; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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, June 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home's quality checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 April 2017. The inspectors reviewed records, spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and observed care in communal areas. They reviewed four care plans and records about staff recruitment and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found that people felt safe, received their medicines when needed, had enough food and drink, and were supported by staff who understood their needs and preferences.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Its audits did not always identify problems with medicine records or patterns in unwitnessed falls. The inspectors recommended improving the quality assurance systems, but the report says no legal requirements were breached.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors saw that risks were assessed, staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and call bells were answered promptly.
“People felt safe and well cared for.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff showed concern for people's wellbeing, respected privacy and dignity, and supported people to make choices and stay independent.
“Staff had caring relationships with people and respected their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs and preferences. Care plans were detailed, reviews took place and people were offered activities linked to their interests.
“People received personalised care from staff who knew their needs and preferences.” from the report
Staff training and support
Inspectors found relevant training, induction and checks of staff competence. Staff said they could discuss their performance and training needs with managers.
“People received care from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs effectively.” from the report
Quality checks missed medicine recording problems
needs fixingAudits had not identified unclear or incomplete medicine records. Variable doses and running stock balances were not always recorded accurately, although the provider said action had been taken after the inspection.
“The medicines audits had not identified that medicines were not always recorded effectively.” from the report
Falls were not fully analysed
needs fixingThe home monitored falls, but its analysis did not separate witnessed from unwitnessed falls. This meant possible links with staffing or other factors had not been fully considered.
“The trend analysis did not distinguish between unwitnessed and witnessed falls and trends were not being identified or analysed in this area.” from the report
Management change
minorThe registered manager had recently resigned and a new manager had recently started. The new manager said they would begin the registration process with CQC.
“There was a registered manager at the service but they had recently resigned from their post.” from the report
- 01How are medicine administration records checked now, especially handwritten records, variable doses and stock balances?
- 02How do you record and review unwitnessed falls, and what action do you take to reduce repeat falls?
- 03Has the new manager completed the process of registering with CQC?
- 04What improvements have been completed since the inspection's recommendation about quality assurance systems?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in checking the quality of the home and planning improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating, based on records, discussions and observations on 25 April 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 2017 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 Heartlands Care Limited t/a Lanrick House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- April 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Heartlands Care Limited t/a Lanrick House →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Heartlands Care Limited t/a Lanrick House →
- July 2015Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 September 2011.
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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.