CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Langham Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were effective, including visitor screening, testing, PPE, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements and safe visiting during COVID-19.
The home provides nursing care for up to 29 people and is designed for people living with dementia. There were 29 people living there when inspectors visited.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, testing, protective equipment, cleaning, hand hygiene and social distancing. They were assured that the home could prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas inspectors normally consider.
Safe visiting
The home had visiting arrangements inside and outside. Visitors completed health screening checks in line with COVID-19 guidance.
“People were supported to receive visitors safely. All visitors were required to complete health screening checks in line with current COVID-19 guidelines.” from the report
Testing and PPE
People, staff and visitors could access COVID-19 testing. Staff had PPE and had been trained to use and dispose of it safely.
“Appropriate arrangements were in place to test people, staff and visitors for COVID-19 in line with current guidance.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Cleaning audits included checks of staff handwashing practices.
“Langham Court was clean and hygienic throughout. Appropriate cleaning products were in use and the provider had invested in a range of cleaning and air cleansing systems to minimise the spread of infection.” from the report
Maintaining activities
Despite restrictions, staff continued to help people socialise and take part in hobbies and interests while supporting social distancing.
“Staff continued to support people to socialise and engage in their hobbies and interests whilst encouraging people to maintain social distancing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened, and what visiting arrangements are available inside and outside the home?
- 02How often are people, staff and visitors tested, and how are positive results managed?
- 03How do you check that staff are using PPE and following hand hygiene procedures correctly?
- 04How do you prevent and manage infection outbreaks, and when was the infection prevention and control policy last updated?
- 05How are residents supported to continue their hobbies, social activities and contact with visitors while maintaining safety?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but the caring and well-led ratings fell from Outstanding and some records were inconsistent.
Inspectors visited without notice on 28 and 29 August 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care, activities and a mealtime, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, audits, complaints and risk information.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, clean surroundings and care that was tailored to people's needs. People were treated with kindness and had activities, outdoor space and support that reflected their interests.
There were some weaknesses in record keeping. Best-interest decisions and people's consent were not always recorded consistently. Some daily notes did not clearly link to care plans or record all actions being taken. The home also did not have a CQC-registered manager at the time, although a new manager had been appointed and interim support was in place.
Enough staff
Inspectors found high staffing levels and staff had time to support people without rushing. Registered nurses were on duty around the clock.
“The service had high staffing levels, to meet the needs of people being supported.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, used their names and supported privacy, dignity, independence and emotional wellbeing.
“People and relatives said people were well supported.” from the report
Dementia-friendly setting
The purpose-built home offered bright, spacious areas, safe outdoor space and objects and activities that encouraged people to engage with their surroundings.
“The building had been designed in line with best practice.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities reflected people's interests and past lives. These included music, exercise, gardening, memory boxes and visits from local children.
“The service used information about people's previous history to support their care and interests now.” from the report
End-of-life support
The home had care plans and practical arrangements to support people and relatives at the end of life.
“Registered nurses told us they prided themselves on their end of life care support.” from the report
Incomplete consent records
needs fixingPeople were asked for consent, but this was not always recorded in daily notes. Some best-interest decisions were also not recorded consistently.
“We saw people were routinely being asked for their consent for care, however this was not always being recorded in the daily notes.” from the report
Care notes did not always match care plans
needs fixingSome daily notes did not link clearly to the care plan or show all the actions staff had taken. The provider said this was being addressed.
“Care and support plans were regularly updated, but some daily notes did not include links to information in the care plan, or reflect all the actions being undertaken.” from the report
No registered manager at the visit
needs fixingThe previous registered manager had left and the replacement manager was due to start after the inspection. Interim management and consultancy arrangements were in place.
“The service did not have a manager, registered with CQC as their previous manager had left in May 2019.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager now started and applied to become registered with CQC?
- 02What changes have been made to ensure consent and best-interest decisions are recorded every time?
- 03How do managers check that daily notes reflect the actions in each person's care plan?
- 04What has the home done to maintain the standards that were previously rated Outstanding for Caring and Well-led?
- 05How is staffing kept under review when people's needs change?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 October 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 Langham Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Gooddown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2016.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.