CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Laburnum Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, appropriate recruitment checks and generally safe medicine management. They also found some medicine-recording mistakes and several infection-control areas needing improvement.
- 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
- Care plans had been improved and included more personalised guidance. Relatives were involved in decisions, activities were available, and people knew how to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- New audits, policies and procedures had improved the way the home was monitored. Staff and relatives described the manager as approachable and communication as good.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found improved care records, safe staffing and kind communication, but some medicine and infection-control records still needed attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. The inspection visit started on 30 April 2021, and evidence was gathered and feedback was given on 12 May 2021. One inspector spoke with relatives and staff and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicine records and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Care plans contained more personalised information, relatives were involved in care decisions, and staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns. There were enough staff, activities were available, and communication with relatives was described as good.
Inspectors found that medicines were mainly managed safely, but there were a couple of recording mistakes. Infection-control arrangements were mostly suitable, although there was no outbreak zoning plan, one staff member was seen without the correct gloves, and moving equipment was stored in communal bathrooms. The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement.
Improved care planning
Care records had moved to a new electronic system and contained more individual information to guide staff. Relatives were involved in reviewing care plans.
“people's care plans included more details to help staff give more person-centred information and support people safely.” from the report
Enough staff
Relatives and staff told inspectors they had no concerns about staffing levels. Recruitment checks were also completed before new staff started.
“There always seem to be enough staff around.” from the report
Good communication
Relatives said they were kept involved and knew how to raise concerns. Staff also described the manager as supportive and approachable.
“Staff or the manager will always ring me and make me feel involved.” from the report
Better management oversight
The home introduced new audits, action records, policies and procedures. Inspectors found enough improvement for the previous governance breach to be closed.
“The provider and registered manager had made improvements to the governance system.” from the report
Medicine recording
needs fixingMedicines were mainly managed safely, but inspectors found a couple of mistakes in the records. The manager said this would be followed up through staff supervision.
“During our review of people's prescribed medicines, we found a couple of mistakes with recording.” from the report
Infection-control planning
needs fixingThe home did not have a zoning plan for an outbreak. Inspectors also saw one staff member without disposable gloves during a health check.
“The registered manager told us they had no zoning plans in place should an outbreak occur.” from the report
Equipment storage
needs fixingMoving and handling equipment was stored in communal bathrooms. Inspectors said this increased the risk of cross-contamination.
“This increased the risk of cross contamination.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to prevent further medicine-recording mistakes?
- 02Has an outbreak zoning plan now been written and tested?
- 03Where is moving and handling equipment stored now, and how is cross-contamination prevented?
- 04How are the electronic care plans kept up to date and checked for enough individual detail?
- 05How are staffing numbers decided as people's dependency needs change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led, prompted partly by infection-control and maintenance concerns; the other key-question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control at the home.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 30 November 2020. It followed concerns about infection control and prevention measures. Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing visitors from spreading infections, following shielding and social distancing rules, and admitting people safely. They were also assured that testing, cleaning, hygiene and outbreak procedures were in place.
The home had created a visiting pod with a clear screen so people could see relatives safely. Whole-home testing was carried out for people and staff. The home also used permanent staff and an on-call system rather than temporary staff.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a quality rating for the service or a rated score for Safe.
Safer visiting
The home had converted a lounge into a visiting pod. This allowed people to sit with relatives while separated by a clear screen.
“The manager had converted a lounge into a 'visiting pod' so that people could sit in a lounge with their relatives, separated by a see-through panel.” from the report
Testing
Testing was carried out across the home for both people living there and staff.
“Whole home testing was carried out on both people and staff.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning had been increased, including cleaning surfaces that people touched often, to reduce infection transmission.
“The cleaning of the home, including frequently touched surfaces, had increased to reduce the risk of transmission of infection.” from the report
Permanent staff cover
The home did not use temporary staff to cover shifts. It used permanent staff through an on-call system so shifts were covered by regular staff.
“The manager did not use temporary staff to cover shifts, however operated an on-call system with permanent staff.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain what specific changes were needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control changes have been made since inspectors signposted the provider to further resources?
- 02How are visits arranged now, and is the visiting pod still used when needed?
- 03How often are people living in the home and staff tested?
- 04What procedures are used if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05How are shifts covered if permanent staff are unavailable?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 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.
Every inspection of Laburnum Lodge
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 June 2017.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,020 to £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.