CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at La Luz Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, clear risk assessments, safe medicines management, suitable fire arrangements and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission. Staff had relevant training and supervision, people could access healthcare professionals, and staff supported people with food, drink and treatment choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's privacy and dignity, encouraging independence and involving people and relatives in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were detailed and personalised. People were offered activities, including one-to-one options, and the manager responded to complaints and recorded people's communication and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff described a positive atmosphere and approachable management. The home used audits, feedback and information from healthcare professionals to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
This was the home's first full inspection since it registered with the CQC. It was unannounced and took place over three visits in May 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, observed care, and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and quality checks.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements and suitable infection control. Risks were assessed and staff knew how to support people safely while respecting their choices. People had access to healthcare, activities and personalised care. Staff were described as kind, respectful and competent.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of the inspection. The service had previously had a targeted infection control inspection, which did not receive a rating.
Enough staff
People and relatives said there were enough staff, and inspectors saw people receiving help without undue delay. Staffing was adjusted using a dependency tool.
“People and their relatives told us there were sufficient staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed staff communicating respectfully, protecting privacy and spending time reassuring people.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring towards them.” from the report
Personalised care records
Care records included people's needs, preferences and risks. Staff used this information to provide appropriate support and involved people in decisions about their care.
“People's care records were detailed, person-centred and gave staff the instructions needed to appropriately support the individual.” from the report
Visible management
The manager was described as approachable and knew people's needs. The home had systems for audits, feedback, complaints and learning from incidents.
“There was a clear structure of governance in place for staff to follow and staff knew what their responsibilities were.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you use the dependency tool to decide whether staffing levels need to change?
- 02How often are medicine administration skills checked, and what happens if a staff member needs more support?
- 03What activities are available for people who prefer to stay in their rooms, and how are their choices recorded?
- 04What improvements and refurbishments were planned, and which of these have been completed since the inspection?
- 05How will relatives be involved in best-interests decisions and end-of-life care planning?
This was the home's first full inspection and covered all five key questions; an earlier targeted infection prevention and control inspection did not provide a rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 July 2022 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and COVID-19 safety arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 02 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than giving a full rating of the home.
Inspectors found good arrangements for staff testing, protective clothing, new admissions, visitors, social distancing and hygiene. Staff had received infection control training and were seen wearing protective clothing correctly.
The home was inspected but not rated overall, and the Safe question was also inspected but not rated. This report therefore does not give a Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating.
Staff testing and protective clothing
Staff shifts were staggered so staff could complete protective clothing procedures and lateral flow tests before starting work. Inspectors saw records of the testing process.
“The service organised staff shifts so that staff entered the home at staggered times.” from the report
Infection control training
Staff had training in infection control and protective clothing. Inspectors observed staff wearing it correctly.
“The provider had conducted training in both IPC and PPE for all staff.” from the report
Support for people with dementia
The home used risk assessments and one-to-one support to help people with dementia remain safe while following isolation and social distancing measures.
“Risk assessments had been completed to support people living with dementia, and others, to remain safe” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Visitors could meet people face to face through an external entrance and a screened area.
“Visitors could visit people face to face using an external entrance to an area of the home where a screen had been setup.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you continue to arrange staff shifts so testing and protective clothing procedures are completed before work starts?
- 02How often do staff receive infection prevention and protective clothing training?
- 03How are new residents safely admitted and supported during any isolation period?
- 04How do you support people with dementia who find social distancing or isolation difficult?
- 05How are face-to-face visits arranged, and what happens if infection risks change?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide a full service rating or assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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.
Every inspection of La Luz Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 September 2020.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.