CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Laburnum House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicine systems and appropriate safeguarding processes. A small fire had occurred, and the provider had requested a full fire survey afterwards.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff worked with healthcare professionals when needs changed. Staff training supported areas such as safe swallowing, although the manager planned to focus more on supervision and training needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in care reviews and were supported to communicate and make choices using methods such as picture cards.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People chose activities, worked towards personal goals and were supported to take holidays and build independence.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, regular audits and action plans for improvement. There had been a recent management change, and the new manager intended to register with the CQC.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a recent change in management.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 10 April 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, observed care, spoke with managers and staff, and checked care, medicine and quality records.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities, although it could support up to six. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Staff supported people to build confidence, stay independent, access healthcare and achieve personal goals, including holidays.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the legal requirements were met and that people's outcomes were consistently good. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in September 2016.
Personal goals and independence
People were supported to work towards goals and regain confidence. This included taking positive risks, going on holidays and becoming more independent after a hospital admission.
“People were supported to meet goals they set which included going on holiday within the UK and abroad.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff speaking warmly with people, understanding their interests and helping to reduce anxiety.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff had formed positive relationships with people.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs and support activities outside the home. Recruitment checks were also completed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Clearer care plans
A shortcoming from the previous inspection had improved. Care plans no longer contained duplicate information that could confuse staff.
“At this inspection we found this had improved. Care plans were clearly written and without duplicate information.” from the report
Recent management change
minorThe registered manager had left in February 2019. A new manager had started in April 2019 but was not yet registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Supervision and training still developing
minorThe new manager said supervision would be an area of focus, including identifying staff training needs. Further epilepsy training was also being considered.
“The manager informed us that supervisions was an area they plan to focus on, so they can work alongside staff and identify any training needs.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now applied for or achieved CQC registration, and who is responsible for the home while this is being completed?
- 02What changes were made to staff supervision after the inspection, and how are training needs now identified?
- 03Was the full fire survey completed after the small fire, and were any further actions needed?
- 04Was the planned additional epilepsy training completed for staff?
- 05How will the home support my relative's communication method, personal goals and preferred activities?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at the overall service, including all five ratings, the premises, care, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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, October 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home required improvement in leadership and records.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 14 and 15 September 2016. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff, managers and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff files and quality records.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and behaviours that could challenge others. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, good health support and respectful care. People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and keep in touch with relatives.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because some care records contained duplicated information and there had been a long period without the registered manager in post.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills to meet people's needs. Staff had time to respond without rushing and recruitment checks were in place.
“There were enough staff with the right skills and knowledge to support people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated as equals and staff respected their privacy, choices and personal space. Inspectors saw warm and positive relationships.
“Staff spoke to people in a kind, patient and engaging way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans explained people's needs, communication and preferences in detail. Staff supported individual goals, including holidays, activities and personal choices.
“Care plans were detailed, informative and person centred.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities they enjoyed and were supported to maintain contact with relatives and friends. Their wishes and ambitions were discussed and acted on.
“People were encouraged to follow their own paths and participate in the activities they liked.” from the report
Improving management
The new manager had improved medicines practice, incident management and staff supervision. Staff and relatives described the home as calmer and more settled.
“The manager understood the challenges they faced and had achieved a great deal in a short amount of time.” from the report
Care records were too large and repetitive
needs fixingSome care files contained duplicated and unnecessary information. The manager had started reducing this, but inspectors said the area still required improvement.
“Some documentation was duplicated and unnecessary.” from the report
Registered manager arrangements
needs fixingThe registered manager had left in 2015 and had not been replaced for a considerable time. A new manager had started in June 2016 and planned to apply for registration.
“Although a manager was registered with the Commission they had not been in post for a considerable amount of time.” from the report
Previous medicines error
seriousA changed prescription was not updated when new medicines arrived, so a person received the old dose for two days. The home responded with extra checks and retraining, and inspectors found no further errors.
“The person had continued to receive their old prescription for two days before it was noticed the dose was incorrect.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager completed their application for registration with the Commission?
- 02Have the duplicated and unnecessary parts of care files now been removed?
- 03What extra checks are used when new medicines arrive or prescriptions change?
- 04How are staffing levels monitored now, following the earlier concern about long hours and overtime?
- 05How does the home recognise and respond when someone cannot make a formal complaint?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 October 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 Laburnum House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.