CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lanchester Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and staffing levels met people's needs. Medicines were managed safely, although some risk assessments were not detailed enough and there was limited social distancing in the shared dining and living space.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and people were supported to access healthcare. Inspectors found strong examples of good health outcomes, but the skills kitchen and outdoor spaces were not used as fully as they could be to support independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in care decisions and staff understood their backgrounds, interests and preferences.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People's basic care needs were met, but activities were not always planned around individual interests and people said there was more they wanted to do. Some care planning records also needed improvement.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was open, approachable and responsive to feedback. There was a positive staff culture, although person-centred care and understanding of relevant guidance were not yet fully consistent.
What inspectors found, September 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but support for activities and independence was not always responsive.
This was a planned inspection on 23 June 2021. Inspectors spoke with six people, three relatives and staff. They reviewed five care records, medicines information, training, complaints and quality checks. They also gathered views from health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Medicines were being managed safely, people were protected from abuse, staff were trained, and people and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Health professionals also gave positive feedback about communication and people's health outcomes.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. People were not always supported to take part in activities that suited them or to build independence, such as cooking and gardening. Some care plans and risk assessments also needed improvement. The overall rating had improved from Requires Improvement in 2019, and the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Medicines safety
The home had improved its medicines systems since the previous inspection. Staff were trained and medicines were given as prescribed, with clearer guidance for medicines given when needed.
“Medicines were managed safely. Staff understood the importance of accuracy when recording medicines administration.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were involved in decisions and staff understood their histories, interests and anxieties. Relatives also described staff as caring and respectful.
“Staff treated people well and ensured they were involved in decisions. People's individualities were embraced by the home.” from the report
Health support
Staff worked well with health and social care professionals. Inspectors found examples of very positive physical health outcomes.
“There were some strong examples of people being supported to excellent physical health outcomes.” from the report
Safeguarding and staffing
The home had systems to protect people from abuse and staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Recruitment processes were in place and staffing levels met people's needs.
“The service had systems in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Open management
The management team responded promptly to feedback and worked openly with relatives and professionals. Staff said they felt supported.
“The registered manager and deputy manager were responsive to feedback during the inspection and during follow up.” from the report
Too few planned activities
needs fixingPeople were not always proactively supported to take part in activities that matched their interests. There was no set activities lead, and people consistently said they wanted more to do.
“People consistently told us they wished there was more to do.” from the report
Independence opportunities
needs fixingThe skills kitchen was rarely used and some people who wanted to improve their cooking had not been supported to do so. The outdoor space also needed repair or repurposing.
“Indoor and outdoor spaces could be better utilised to support people's needs and to enable independence.” from the report
Care records needed more detail
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments were not sufficiently person-centred. The home's audits had not identified all of these gaps, although changes were made during the inspection.
“However there were areas of care plans and risk assessments which required improvement.” from the report
Infection control layout
minorInspectors were only somewhat assured about shielding and social distancing because the main dining area was also used as a living room and activities room.
“The main dining space also served as a living room and activities room and there was little to encourage people to maintain a social distance.” from the report
- 01What regular activities are now available, and how are they matched to my relative's interests and goals?
- 02How are you using the skills kitchen and outdoor spaces to help people build independence?
- 03How have you improved care plans and risk assessments so they give staff clear, person-centred instructions?
- 04How have staff been supported to understand and apply Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture?
- 05What arrangements are now in place to support social distancing in the shared dining, living and activities space?
This was a planned inspection of the care provided and premises, covering all five CQC key questions, with infection prevention and control also checked under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 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, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines management and weak quality checks, although care was effective and people were supported by enough trained staff.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 August 2019. One inspector, a pharmacy inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed communal areas, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The main concern was medicines. Records were incomplete, guidance for creams and as-needed medicines was not always suitable or up to date, and medicines given through patches were not always applied according to guidance. The inspectors found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, but this was a breach of the law.
The home was rated Good for Effective. People had their needs assessed, received suitable training and health support, and were supported with food, choice and least restrictive care. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement because medicines were not always managed safely and routine audits had failed to find these problems.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in August 2018. The overall rating fell to Requires Improvement after this focused inspection. Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing was in line with people's needs. Agency staff were rarely used, and staff recruitment checks were completed before people started work.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Staff skills
New and existing staff received induction, regular training, supervision and appraisals. Training included areas linked to people's individual needs.
“Staff continued to receive regular training to ensure they had the correct skills and knowledge to support people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take positive risks and live as independently as possible. The home used the least restrictive approach.
“People were supported in the least restrictive way.” from the report
People's involvement
People could share ideas through regular meetings and questionnaires. They were involved in making improvements to the home.
“People were encouraged to share ideas for improvements and what they would like to see in the service.” from the report
Medicines records and guidance
seriousMedicines were not always managed safely. Records, care plans and risk assessments were incomplete or out of date, including guidance for creams, as-needed medicines and patches.
“Medicines were not always managed safely and records had not been completed correctly.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingRoutine medicines audits did not identify the problems found by inspectors. The provider was told to improve its quality monitoring systems.
“These issues were not identified during routine quality audits.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines records, including records for creams, as-needed medicines and patches?
- 02How do you now check that medicines guidance is person-centred and updated when people's needs change?
- 03How do you make sure routine medicines audits identify problems before they affect people's safety?
- 04What progress has been made in response to the action plan requested by CQC?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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.
Every inspection of Lanchester Court
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2011.
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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Gateshead
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 £950 to £1,240 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.