CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lanesborough House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People's risks were identified and care records were detailed, but catheter monitoring records had gaps. Inspectors also found that some actions needed after incidents were not always put in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care followed relevant guidance. Staff had training and support, people received suitable food and drinks, and staff worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were generally treated with dignity, respect and kindness and were involved in decisions about their care. Inspectors did observe one discussion of confidential care information that did not protect privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records included people's preferences, communication needs and care wishes. The home provided activities and recorded people's end of life wishes, although one complaint about catheter monitoring had not led to effective action.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a clear management structure, staff felt supported and the home had systems for audits, complaints and feedback. However, audits had not identified the gaps in catheter monitoring records.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Lanesborough House Care Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found important safety monitoring records were not always complete.
This was the home's first inspection. It was unannounced, started on 11 January 2022 and ended on 13 January 2022. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives generally said people were safe, well cared for and treated with kindness. Staff said they had enough training, support and supervision, and inspectors found enough staff to meet assessed needs.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in records showing that urinary catheter bags had been checked and emptied, and that some clinical monitoring had taken place. Management systems had not always identified these gaps, although the provider said it would act on the findings.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to provide the support people were assessed as needing. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“There were sufficient staff to ensure that people got the support they were assessed as needing.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's preferences, interests, health needs and communication needs. Relatives said people and families were involved in care decisions.
“Care records contained information about people's personal preferences and needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were generally treated with dignity and respect. Relatives described staff as caring and said they had confidence in the care provided.
“I am really happy with his care, and how he is being looked after.” from the report
Health support
People could access health professionals, and staff acted when they identified concerns about people's health.
“We could see where staff had reported concerns about a person's health, and this had resulted in the person seeing a doctor the same day.” from the report
Management checks missed a problem
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified that catheter monitoring was not being recorded effectively. This meant management did not have full assurance that monitoring was taking place.
“The provider's audits had not identified where monitoring of people's catheters had not been effectively recorded.” from the report
Privacy
minorInspectors heard confidential information about a person's care needs discussed in a way that did not protect their privacy. Managers said they would address this with staff.
“However, we did observe where confidential information about a person's care needs were being discussed in a way that did not protect the privacy of the person.” from the report
Outdoor areas
minorInspectors found discarded cigarettes and rubbish in some outdoor areas. The manager took immediate steps to put this right.
“Some aspects of the outside spaces needed attention, for example we found discarded cigarettes and some areas contained rubbish that had not been properly disposed of.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every catheter check and emptied bag is recorded?
- 02How do managers now audit clinical monitoring records and make sure gaps are acted on?
- 03What has been done to reinforce privacy when staff discuss people's care needs?
- 04How are people's individual preferences, communication needs and end of life wishes kept up to date?
- 05How can relatives contact a manager or supervisor at weekends if they have an urgent concern?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, with a visit on 11 January 2022 and inspection activity continuing until 13 January 2022. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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.
Every inspection of Lanesborough House Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Lanesborough House Care Home →
- January 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 January 2020.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Warwickshire
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.