CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Langford Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with better risk records, trained staff, safeguarding systems and effective infection control. Inspectors still found shortfalls in some medicines records, oxygen storage, care plans and access to call bells, which the provider acted on.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was being managed by the provider with support from clinical and quality leads while recruitment for a new manager continued. Inspectors found open leadership, effective quality checks and a culture of learning.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Langford Park is rated Good; inspectors found safer care and stronger leadership, but some medicines records and management arrangements still needed attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 January 2023. Inspectors reviewed safety and leadership after concerns about risk management and staffing. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were described as trained and competent, and there were systems to manage risks, safeguarding, staffing and infection control. The management team also showed that it learned from incidents and acted openly when problems were found.
Some shortfalls were found in records about topical medicines, oxygen storage and instructions for medicines given when needed. Care plans also needed more detail about cleaning equipment, catheters and signs of infection. The provider acted immediately on these issues during or after the inspection.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. This overall rating also used ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection because Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this visit.
Better risk management
Risk records and monitoring had improved since the previous inspection. Staff were trained and competent, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
“There were processes in place to document, monitor and mitigate risks to people.” from the report
Open leadership
The management team was open about problems and encouraged staff to raise concerns. Quality checks had identified most of the issues found by inspectors.
“The management team promoted a culture of openness and honesty.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
The home used staffing plans based on people's needs and had improved problems caused by last-minute sickness. Required recruitment checks had been completed.
“Staff had been recruited safely. Relevant pre-employment checks had been carried out.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed accidents, incidents and near misses. It also changed its admission process after problems involving people with very complex needs.
“The management team took action in response to lessons learned.” from the report
Positive feedback
People, relatives and staff generally described the home as pleasant, welcoming and well run.
“Overall people and their relatives felt there was a positive culture at the service, and it was well run.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingStaff did not always record which topical medicines had been applied or where. Instructions for medicines given when needed also needed more detail.
“Staff were not consistently documenting what topical medications were being applied and where.” from the report
Care plan details
needs fixingSome care plans did not give enough guidance about cleaning equipment, managing catheters or recognising signs of infection. The management team added information during the inspection.
“We found improvements were needed to care plans to guide staff in the cleaning of equipment such as nebulisers, the management of catheters and recognising signs of infection.” from the report
Management continuity
minorThere had been three unsuccessful managerial appointments in three years. No registered manager was in post during the inspection, although recruitment was continuing.
“There had been 3 unsuccessful managerial appointments in 3 years.” from the report
Staff cover and call bells
needs fixingOne communal area was briefly left with only one staff member after lunch, and two people did not have call bells within reach when alone in their rooms. The provider took action to address these points.
“We observed however that 2 people did not have their call bell within reach when they were alone in their rooms.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and has a registered manager now been appointed?
- 02How do you check that topical medicines are recorded correctly, including where they were applied?
- 03How are medicines given when needed supported by clear instructions for staff?
- 04What checks confirm that care plans include equipment cleaning, catheter care and signs of infection?
- 05How do you make sure communal areas remain staffed during breaks and that every person can reach their call bell?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with infection prevention and control also reviewed; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 2023 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 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and better systems, but safety records, staff training and new management systems were not yet fully reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 and 13 April 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care, training and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly. Medicines were managed safely, staff knew people well, and relatives were positive about communication and involvement in care.
However, records about repositioning, bed rails, food and fluids were not always complete. Some mandatory training was unfinished. Environmental risks, including equipment maintenance and emergency plans, had not been managed well until the new manager started addressing them.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in breach of regulations found at the previous inspection, but the new systems and changes in leadership still needed to become established and consistent.
Medicines
Inspectors found effective systems for ordering, storing, giving and reviewing medicines. Staff who administered medicines had their competence checked.
“Effective systems were now in place to ensure people received their medicines safely and in the way prescribed for them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and understood their needs. Relatives also reported that people were treated well and included in decisions.
“People told us they were kind and caring. They felt respected and included in decisions.” from the report
Communication with families
Relatives were positive about being kept informed and involved in care planning. They could view support through the relatives gateway.
“Overall relatives were extremely positive about their communication with the home in relation to their family member.” from the report
Improved information sharing
Daily meetings and electronic handovers helped staff, including agency staff, keep up to date with people's needs and risks.
“There was improved communication across the service to review risks to people and the actions required to minimise them.” from the report
Incomplete safety records
seriousRecords did not always show whether people had been repositioned or received the required food and fluids. Bed rail checks were also not consistently recorded.
“This meant it was not always possible to see if people had received the support they needed to minimise the risks.” from the report
Training not complete
seriousNot all staff had completed mandatory training, so their knowledge and skills were not consistently up to date.
“People were potentially at risk, because staff knowledge and skills were not consistently up to date.” from the report
Leadership still settling
needs fixingThe new manager was putting better systems in place, but there had been several managerial appointments and the changes were not yet embedded.
“The new manager was introducing a clear structure with more effective monitoring and accountability, however these changes had yet to be fully established and embedded.” from the report
Consent for social media images
minorInspectors said the home needed to think further about using images of people who could not consent.
“However, further consideration was needed related to the use of images on social media for people without capacity to consent.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that repositioning, food and fluid records are complete every day?
- 02Have all staff completed their mandatory training, including agency staff, and how do you check this?
- 03What has been done to ensure equipment maintenance and emergency plans are kept up to date?
- 04How are decisions about using images of people who cannot consent made and recorded?
- 05How will you show that the new manager's monitoring and accountability systems are now fully embedded?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 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 Langford Park
11 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 August 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.