CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lancaster Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home managed infection risks through testing, isolation, protective equipment, cleaning, vaccination checks and visiting controls. They also found measures to manage staffing pressures.
- 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
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and visiting arrangements during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
The home was closed because of a COVID-19 outbreak, with eight people testing positive. Inspectors found safe isolation procedures, suitable use of protective equipment, regular testing, cleaning and vaccination checks. They were assured that infection risks were being managed.
People could still have an essential care giver and regular visits from named visitors. The home had enough staff to support people safely, although there had been some staffing pressures. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating.
Maintaining family contact
The home allowed essential care givers and named visitors during the outbreak. This was intended to reduce loneliness and support people's wellbeing.
“This helped to reduce the risk of loneliness and improved people's mental health and wellbeing.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors saw safe isolation, barrier nursing, protective equipment stations and safe disposal of used equipment. Regular cleaning and testing were also in place.
“Safe isolation procedures were in place to protect others from the risk of infection.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
Staff and residents were tested regularly. Staff vaccination status was checked, and all staff were fully vaccinated at the time of inspection.
“All staff and people living at the home were tested regularly and in accordance with government guidance.” from the report
Managing staffing pressures
The home had enough staff to support people safely and used trained managers, administrators and agency staff when needed.
“There were enough staff to support people safely and to cover any staff holidays, sickness and COVID-19 isolation.” from the report
Isolation for people with dementia
needs fixingThe report says isolation was difficult for people living with dementia. The home assigned specific staff to support them and identify risks.
“It was acknowledged isolation for people living with dementia was problematic.” from the report
Staffing pressures
needs fixingThe home had experienced some pressure on staffing numbers during the pandemic. The report says trained managerial and administrative staff helped when urgent support was needed.
“There had been some pressures on staff numbers.” from the report
- 01How do you support people living with dementia when they need to isolate?
- 02Have staffing pressures changed since the inspection, and how do you cover sickness, holidays and COVID-19 absence?
- 03What visiting arrangements are available if there is another outbreak?
- 04How will you keep my relative in contact with family if communal areas have to close?
- 05What are your current testing, vaccination and protective equipment arrangements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 February 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, May 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective, caring and responsive care, but the home was not always well-led.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 25 and 26 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks. They also observed care.
Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, risks were reviewed, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Care was kind and respectful, and people's preferences, communication needs and activities were considered.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because there had been no registered manager since January 2019. The home was no longer rated Inadequate and was taken out of Special Measures.
Improved staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staffing levels had improved since the previous inspection.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe. People and relatives felt there were enough staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Safe care
Risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean. Staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns and emergencies.
“People were protected from the risk of acquiring infections and the service was clean.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them with warmth, dignity and respect. People were offered choices about their care and daily lives.
“Throughout our inspection, we saw staff took time to spend with people. Care and support was offered with warmth and good humour to everyone we saw.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered group and individual activities based on people's interests and needs. Activities took place in the home and in the local community.
“The staff team supported people to take part in a wide range of group and individual activities, depending on people's preferences.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home had not had a registered manager since January 2019. Inspectors said this could make it harder to keep the improvements consistent over time.
“The service did not have a registered manager in post and had not had a registered manager since our last inspection.” from the report
- 01Who is currently managing the home, and when do you expect to have a registered manager in post?
- 02How will you make sure the improvements in staffing, risk management and care planning continue over time?
- 03How are you updating people's end of life care plans to include their personal wishes and preferences?
- 04How do you review staffing levels when the number or needs of residents change?
- 05How are relatives kept informed about management changes and improvement plans?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, the care provided and the premises, after the previous inspection found multiple breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 May 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 Lancaster Grange
6 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2020Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 April 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.