CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Langdale Heights
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured the home had effective COVID-19 infection prevention and control measures.
Inspectors visited on 2 December 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures because the local authority had identified the home as a designated care setting.
There were 26 people living in the home, which could provide care for up to 31 people. Inspectors found a planned five-bedroom area for people who tested positive for COVID-19. The area had a separate entrance and was designed to reduce contact with other people and areas of the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home used suitable protective equipment, testing, cleaning, visitor controls and admission procedures. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Separate COVID-19 area
A refurbished floor and separate entrance were planned to keep people who tested positive, and the staff caring for them, away from others and other parts of the home.
“This meant people using the designated area, and staff caring for them, did not come into contact with anyone else or any other area of the service.” from the report
Entry checks
The home used temperature checks, a contact questionnaire and hand disinfection when people entered.
“There was a detailed entry system into the home, with temperature testing, contact questionnaire and hand disinfection.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
Inspectors saw plentiful supplies of masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. Staff used them appropriately, and the home took part in regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents.
“The provider ensured there was a plentiful supply of personal protective equipment such as masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser.” from the report
Cleaning and risk planning
Areas were thoroughly cleaned and disinfected. Risk assessments were completed for people and staff who might be at higher risk from COVID-19.
“Areas were thoroughly cleaned and disinfected with approved products to reduce the potential of transfer of infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How is the five-bedroom designated area used now, and does it still have a separate entrance?
- 02How often are people living in the home and staff tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 03How do you check that staff are using masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser correctly?
- 04How are visitors screened and supported to follow infection prevention procedures?
- 05How often are the infection prevention and control policy and cleaning procedures reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only, so it did not provide ratings for the overall service or the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a few minor safety and privacy issues to address.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 June 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment and training, complaints and quality checks.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found that staff knew people's needs and life histories, supported choice and independence, and provided varied activities. People had access to healthcare, suitable food and support with their nutrition.
The home was judged safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. All five areas were rated Good. Inspectors noted a small number of issues, including faulty or poorly positioned equipment and a staff allocation sheet that displayed private information.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions between staff and people. Staff offered emotional support and used people's interests and life histories to make daily care more personal.
“Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences and support needs. People were involved in decisions such as when to get up, where to eat and what activities to join.
“People chose what time they got up and when to go to bed and where they had their meals.” from the report
Good activities
The home provided a wide range of group and one-to-one activities, including music, entertainment, baking, pets and exercise.
“Activities were central to people's lives at the home and the providers had invested time and resources into ensuring people had varied opportunities for exercise, hobbies, and entertainment.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers used surveys and audits to check the quality of care. The report says these checks led to improvements, including changes to menus, flooring and parts of the building.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Safety equipment needed attention
needs fixingInspectors found a failing battery in one magnetic fire door guard, another battery that was flat, hoists charging in a hallway and some incorrect pressure mattress settings. These issues were reported to managers, who agreed to act.
“One of these was 'beeping' in the reception area as its battery was failing, and the battery on another one had gone flat.” from the report
Private information was displayed
needs fixingA staff allocation sheet showing people's repositioning arrangements was displayed on the dining room wall. Managers agreed to move it to a less public area.
“This gave details of each person and how frequently they should be repositioned. This was private information.” from the report
Laundry complaints
minorTwo relatives reported ongoing concerns about the quality of the laundry service. The home had recruited a new laundry worker and was working to resolve the issue.
“Two relatives told us they had had ongoing issues with the quality of the laundry service but the providers and managers were resolving this.” from the report
- 01Have the faulty magnetic door guard batteries been replaced, and how are fire safety checks recorded now?
- 02What was done about the hoists charging in the hallway and the incorrect pressure mattress settings?
- 03How is private information about people's care and repositioning kept out of public areas?
- 04Has the laundry service improved since the new laundry worker was recruited?
- 05How will my relative be offered activities that match their interests, abilities and preferred times of day?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 2018 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 Langdale Heights
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 April 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
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 £1,260 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
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.