CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Langholme
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe risk assessments, medicines management, staffing, recruitment and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices, nutrition and health were supported well. Staff had suitable training and worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- No separate rating for Caring is given in the report text. Inspectors did record that people felt happy, safe and well supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- No separate rating for Responsive is given in the report text. The report says staff knew people's preferences and supported person-centred care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had effective checks on care quality, clear responsibilities and a positive, open culture. The previous problems with care records and governance had been improved.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Langholme rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective care and better records, although some support systems had been disrupted during the pandemic.
This was an announced inspection on 12 March 2022. One inspector spoke with six people using the home and nine staff. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff recruitment and supervision records, and management information.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable infection control, suitable training and good support from managers.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Care plans were more up to date, staff understood people's needs better, and personal care records were now secure. The previous breach of Regulation 17 had been met.
Improved care records
Care plans had been reviewed and were more current. Staff had the information they needed to support people.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and care planning, reviews and staff understanding of people's needs were current.” from the report
Secure records
The home acted on the previous problem with unlocked care files. The boxes holding records had been fitted with keypad locks.
“All boxes had been made secure by adding keypad locks.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff understood people's individual medicines support needs.
“People received their medicines in a safe way, as prescribed for them.” from the report
Good management
Managers had effective checks, clear responsibilities and a positive culture. Staff and people using the home said they felt supported.
“There was good oversight of the governance systems for the service in place.” from the report
Some healthcare delays
minorInspectors noted delays in responses from external healthcare services during the pandemic. They said the system was slowly improving.
“There had been some delays in response during the COVID-19 pandemic, however the system was slowly improving.” from the report
Supervision had been disrupted
minorFormal staff supervision had been interrupted during the pandemic, although records showed it had restarted by the inspection.
“Formal supervision had been disrupted due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Feedback systems were restarting
minorFormal quality checks and gathering people's views had also been disrupted during the pandemic. Managers had begun putting surveys back in place.
“There had been disruption in formal quality assurance and gaining the views of stakeholders due to the impact of COVID-19.” from the report
- 01How are you keeping staffing levels consistent when staff are off sick or when there are COVID-19 pressures?
- 02How often are staff now receiving formal supervision, and is this recorded?
- 03What surveys or other methods are now being used to gather people's and families' views?
- 04How do you check that care plans are updated promptly when someone's needs change?
- 05How quickly can staff obtain advice from external health professionals when there are concerns about a person's health?
This inspection checked whether a previous breach had been met and gives ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led; the report text does not give separate Caring or Responsive ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 April 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.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found mostly good care, but record keeping and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 and 10 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines, staffing, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People received their medicines safely, staff were recruited safely, and people were supported to access healthcare and activities. Inspectors also saw kind interactions and received positive feedback from people, relatives and healthcare professionals.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement because the home was not always well-led. Some care plans and risk records were out of date, unclear or difficult for staff to find. Care records were also not always stored securely, and the home's audits had not found these problems.
The home breached Regulation 17 on good governance. Inspectors found no evidence that people had been harmed. Some issues were corrected during or shortly after the inspection, including moving care files to a secure location and reviewing care plans.
Safe medicines
People received medicines safely and on time. Staff were trained and medicines checks were carried out.
“People received their medicines safely and on time.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and safe recruitment checks were completed. Recent recruitment had helped address earlier staff shortages.
“At this inspection we found that the provider had taken action to help ensure there were sufficient staff on shift to meet people's needs.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were supported to attend appointments and staff sought professional advice when health changed. Visiting healthcare professionals had no concerns about the support provided.
“The staff work hard to ensure people's needs are met. Any changes and they are on to us straight away.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in varied activities, spend time outside, use the internet and receive visitors. The home also supported people to maintain contact with family and friends.
“Robot animals, a portable magic table and a wi-fi speaker enabled people to access a variety of activities.” from the report
Kind care
Inspectors observed friendly and caring support. People and relatives described staff positively and said they felt able to raise concerns.
“All the staff show true compassion towards her and other residents” from the report
Care records were not reliable
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments did not accurately reflect changes in people's needs. Information was sometimes disjointed and difficult for staff to find.
“Some care plans provided information which was disjointed and did not accurately reflect recent changes in some people's needs.” from the report
Confidential records were not secure
seriousMany care files were kept in bedroom boxes whose locks did not work properly. The files were moved to a secure location while the locks were repaired.
“Many of these boxes did not lock effectively and were unlocked throughout the inspection.” from the report
Audits missed problems
needs fixingThe home carried out audits, but these checks did not identify the record-keeping and security issues found by inspectors.
“However, the issues identified at this inspection had not been identified by these audits.” from the report
Mealtime experience varied
needs fixingThe mealtime atmosphere differed between floors. Upstairs, some people ate in silence and one person was not shown the meal options before a choice was made.
“Upstairs, people in the dining room ate in silence, with staff gathered in the kitchen.” from the report
Some care was task-focused
needs fixingSome staff mainly interacted with people while completing tasks and did not always explain what they were about to do.
“Some staff did not always explain to people what they were about to do, before they began to support them.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure care plans and risk assessments are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 02Where are care records stored now, and how do you ensure they remain confidential and secure?
- 03How do your current audits check that care records are complete, accurate and easy for staff to find?
- 04How will you ensure people are shown meal choices and receive a sociable mealtime experience?
- 05How do you monitor whether staff explain care tasks and spend meaningful time with people?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good at the inspection published on 10 April 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 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 Langholme
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- April 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 2010.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.