CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lambton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and plans were in place to reduce them. Medicines, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were generally managed safely, although cleaning was not always effective in the kitchen and some areas needed redecoration.
- Effective?
- Good
- People enjoyed mealtimes and received food and drink suited to their needs. Staff received training and supervision, and the home worked with outside professionals to support people's health.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff respected people's choices, dignity, privacy and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People had access to activities based on their interests, and the home had a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Checks and audits had improved, and people, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management and culture. The home used feedback and worked with external professionals to improve care.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some cleaning and redecoration work still needed.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 17, 23 and 29 June 2022. Two inspectors spoke with five people, three relatives and 10 staff. They also reviewed care records, medicine records and other information.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they were happy, felt safe and received the care and support they wanted. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, staff were trained and people were treated with kindness and respect.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had breaches of regulations. The provider was no longer in breach. Some areas needed redecoration so they could be cleaned properly, and cleaning in the kitchen was not always effective. The manager acted immediately when this was raised.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff asking people about their views and respecting the choices they made.
“People were happy at the service, and received the care and support they wanted.” from the report
Safer medicines and risk management
Risks were assessed and managed, and medicine records had no errors or unexplained gaps. This was an improvement from the previous inspection.
“Medicine administration records had been completed without errors or unexplained gaps.” from the report
Good support with food and drink
Meals reflected people's assessed needs and preferences, including specialist diets. People said they enjoyed mealtimes.
“Meals reflected people's assessed eating and drinking needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home offered activities based on people's interests and encouraged relatives to join in. An additional activities coordinator had been employed to support more one-to-one activities.
“Activities were based on people's interests, and relatives were encouraged to participate so people could enjoy them with their families.” from the report
Improved management
Audit systems and care record reviews had improved. The home had addressed the previous breaches and was no longer in breach of regulations.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Cleaning and redecoration
needs fixingSome areas needed redecoration so they could be cleaned effectively. Cleaning in the kitchen was not always effective, although the manager acted immediately after inspectors raised it.
“In other areas, such as the kitchen, effective cleaning was not always taking place.” from the report
Further improvements were still planned
minorThe home had improved its environment for people living with dementia, but more work was planned. Further personalisation of care records was also planned.
“Further improvements to the premises were planned, and external professional advice was being sought on how to ensure these met people's needs.” from the report
- 01What cleaning and redecoration work was needed in the kitchen and other areas, and has it now been completed?
- 02How will you make sure people's care records remain accurate and personalised while the new electronic system is introduced?
- 03What further changes are planned to make the environment more suitable for people living with dementia?
- 04How are staffing levels monitored on each shift, especially when the home is recruiting?
- 05How will you continue to check that activities reflect each person's interests and offer enough one-to-one time?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection that looked at the home, the care provided, infection control and all five CQC questions, following the previous Requires Improvement rating and breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured the home had safe infection prevention and control measures.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 11 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable measures for visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
The home had enough protective equipment, staff had related training, infection control checks were carried out, and managers kept reviewing their processes. The inspection did not give an overall quality rating.
Protective equipment and training
The home had enough aprons, gloves and masks. Staff had training in using protective equipment and other coronavirus-related procedures.
“There was sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) such as aprons, gloves and masks.” from the report
Social distancing
The home used signs and rearranged seating to support social distancing.
“Steps had been taken to promote social distancing, such as frequent signage and seating being rearranged.” from the report
Management communication
Managers had processes for sharing changing guidance with staff and supporting their concerns about working during the pandemic.
“Management had good processes for communicating changes in guidance with staff and to support staff with any anxieties about working during a pandemic.” from the report
Infection control checks
The home carried out infection control audits and checks. The manager was reviewing these to support good practice.
“Infection control audits and checks were carried out.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 11 November 2020?
- 02How do you currently manage visiting, social distancing and preventing infections from spreading?
- 03How often do staff receive training on protective equipment and infection control?
- 04How do you carry out and act on infection control audits and checks?
- 05What is your current process for testing people and staff, and for managing an outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 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 Lambton House
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not rated
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 March 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.