CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Langdale House Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were protected from abuse and medicines were managed safely. However, risk guidance and care records were sometimes unclear or incomplete, and fire safety, infection control and cleaning needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained, experienced and supported people's physical, mental health and welfare needs. People had enough to eat and drink and were supported to use health services.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in their care and in everyday decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and choices. People could maintain relationships, take part in activities and raise complaints, which were investigated and resolved.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The management team was supportive and open to learning. However, audits and checks did not reliably identify or drive improvement in health and safety, cleanliness and the environment, and there was no clear development plan.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective and responsive care, but weaknesses in safety checks, infection control and service oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 December 2019. Two inspectors spoke with four people, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training, audits and safety checks.
People were generally positive about the home. Staff knew people well, treated them kindly and supported their health, choices, food and activities. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were suitable and complaints had been handled.
Improvements were needed in safety guidance and records, infection control, cleaning and fire safety. The systems for checking quality and planning improvements were also not strong enough. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with Safe and Well-led also rated Requires Improvement. The other three areas were rated Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw a relaxed atmosphere and staff who knew people well and responded attentively.
“We saw by the staff's interactions with people and by talking with staff, they knew people well and positive relationships had been developed.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff had guidance and their skills were checked.
“Medicines systems were safely organised, and people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Good staff training and support
Staff were experienced, received refresher training and had regular opportunities to discuss their work and development.
“Staff had gained a recognised qualification in health and social care and received annual refresher training to keep their knowledge and skills up to date with best practice guidance.” from the report
Fire and risk controls
seriousSome people smoked in their bedrooms, but it was not clear whether extra fire precautions were in place. There was no evidence of fire drills, and one person did not have an up-to-date evacuation plan.
“It was not clear what additional precautions had been taken to reduce this risk, such as the use of fire-retardant bedding.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingRecords did not always show that required welfare checks had taken place. Inspectors considered this mainly a recording problem because staff knew what support people needed.
“Daily records used by staff to record when care and support was provided, showed gaps in the frequency checks were completed.” from the report
Infection control and cleaning
needs fixingSome areas had not been deep cleaned. Cleaning schedules lacked enough detail, mattress and pillow checks were not completed and paper towels were not always available.
“The prevention and control of infection and cross contamination procedures were not sufficiently robust or fully adhered to best practice guidance.” from the report
Monitoring weight loss
needs fixingOne person had lost weight and missed a GP appointment. Inspectors found that further monitoring and follow-up support had not been arranged.
“We were concerned that no other action had been taken such as monitoring food and fluid intake.” from the report
Weak improvement planning
needs fixingAudits identified some problems, but there was no ongoing plan showing which improvements were needed, who would complete them or when.
“There was no ongoing development plan for the service that showed what improvements were planned and how these would be achieved and within what timescale.” from the report
Supporting independence
minorInspectors found that staff did not always use a person-centred approach to encourage independence with personal presentation and daily living tasks.
“We identified staff did not consistently have a person-centred approach to care.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure fire drills take place and every person has an up-to-date personal emergency evacuation plan?
- 02What precautions are now used if someone smokes in their bedroom, including fire-retardant bedding or other controls?
- 03How are cleaning schedules, deep cleaning, mattress checks and supplies such as paper towels now monitored?
- 04How do staff record welfare checks and follow up weight loss or missed health appointments?
- 05What written improvement plan is now in place, and how can families see progress against its actions and timescales?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions at a newly registered service, based on observations, discussions and records checked during and after the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 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 Langdale House Residential Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Langdale House Residential Home →
- December 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2018.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
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 £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.