CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Langley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed through visitor controls, testing, protective equipment, social distancing, cleaning and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found appropriate infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The home supports up to 25 older people, and 25 people were living there when inspectors visited. This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 March 2021.
Inspectors looked specifically at infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 pandemic. They were assured that the home managed visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing, cleaning and possible outbreaks appropriately.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four areas.
Controlled visiting
Visitors had to book, report symptoms, take a COVID-19 test and have their temperature checked. Visits were staggered and areas were cleaned between visits.
“Visits were staggered and areas were cleaned between visits.” from the report
Testing arrangements
The home had arrangements for regular COVID-19 testing of people and staff, including measures for positive results.
“The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for COVID-19 and was following government guidance on regular testing.” from the report
Staff training and protective equipment
Staff had training in COVID-19, infection control and the use of protective equipment. Inspectors saw staff wearing protective equipment.
“All staff had received training on COVID-19, infection control and the use of PPE.” from the report
Cleaning and ventilation
The home had a cleaning schedule, ventilation and specialist equipment to ventilate and purify the air.
“A cleaning schedule was in place to ensure the home was clean and tidy.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since the inspection in March 2021?
- 02How do you currently test people and staff for infections, and what happens after a positive result?
- 03What infection control training do staff receive now, including training on protective equipment?
- 04How do you manage a suspected or confirmed infection outbreak in the home?
- 05How often are communal areas cleaned and ventilated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but activities were not regular and some records needed updating.
The unannounced inspection took place on 10 March 2020. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, the manager, the cook and care staff. They also checked care plans, staff files, medicines records, training records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines management, enough staff, kind care and regular checks on the quality of the service.
There were some areas to improve. Activities were not organised regularly, and communication needs were not recorded consistently in care plans. Staff appraisals had also not all been completed. The home was given a recommendation about activity planning.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in October 2017, and all five ratings remained Good. This means the inspection found a consistent standard of care, but it does not mean that every part of the service was perfect.
Risk management
Care plans included individual risk assessments covering areas such as mobility, skin condition and health conditions. Incidents were reviewed and action was taken to reduce repeat falls.
“Care plans contained suitable and sufficient risk assessments to effectively manage risks and help keep people safe.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors found medicines were given as prescribed, stock checks were accurate and records were completed. Staff had medicines training and people said medicines were given on time.
“We observed that staff gave people their medicines safely, ensuring people took their medicines and recording this on people's MAR.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw caring relationships and found that privacy, dignity, choice and independence were respected.
“We observed that staff had a positive relationship with people and spoke to them in a caring way.” from the report
Food and health support
People had meal choices and their dietary needs were recorded. Staff monitored weight and supported people to see doctors, dentists and other health professionals.
“People were given choices with meals and a menu was in place.” from the report
Management and checks
The home used audits, surveys, meetings and feedback to monitor care and make improvements. Staff said they could raise concerns with managers.
“The results of the surveys were analysed and action was taken where possible to make improvements to the home.” from the report
Activities were not regular
needs fixingActivities took place, but they were not organised in a regular or structured way. People and relatives gave mixed feedback, and inspectors recommended following best practice on activity management.
“Although activities were carried out, these were not structured to ensure people participated in regular activities.” from the report
Communication records
minorPeople's communication abilities were not consistently recorded in care plans. The manager said this was being added to the new digital care planning system.
“People's ability to communicate was not recorded in their care plans consistently, to help ensure their communication needs were met.” from the report
Staff appraisals
minorMost staff had not completed their self-appraisals, so appraisals had not been held. Inspectors advised the manager to complete them to support staff development.
“However, the registered manager told us appraisals had not been held as most staff had not completed their self-appraisals.” from the report
- 01How often are activities now scheduled, and how do you check that people take part in activities they enjoy?
- 02Have all residents' communication needs now been recorded clearly in their care plans?
- 03Have staff appraisals been completed, and how are staff development needs followed up?
- 04How do you use feedback from residents and relatives to improve activities and reduce social isolation?
- 05How do you review falls and other incidents to make sure the actions taken are working?
This unannounced planned inspection looked at all five key questions and reviewed both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 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 Langley House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 July 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Havering
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.