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 found sufficient staff with the right skills, safe medicines management, suitable infection control and clear risk assessments. Safeguarding procedures and emergency plans were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People had support with health checks, dietary needs, communication and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Staff promoted dignity, privacy, choice, independence and personal relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's individual needs, routines, communication and preferences and were reviewed regularly. People had personalised activity planners and access to a range of activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, clear responsibilities and regular checks on safety and quality. Managers acted on some audit findings and staff feedback, although some improvements were still being incorporated.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some staff feedback and paperwork issues being followed up.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 3 January 2019. The inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported 11 people with learning disabilities and was registered for up to 12 people. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, clean premises and clear risk assessments.
People were described as calm and comfortable with staff. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. People were supported to make choices, keep relationships, take part in activities and access health care.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection, with no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff with the skills needed to support people in a relaxed and unhurried way.
“On the day of our inspection, people were supported by sufficient numbers of staff with the right skill mix to meet their needs in a relaxed and unhurried manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff, who supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“People were relaxed in the company of staff and responded well to them. Staff were attentive and had a kind and caring approach towards people.” from the report
Detailed personal plans
Plans included people's communication, routines, health needs, preferences and the particular ways they needed support.
“Care plans were person centred and clearly identified the particular ways of providing support that were unique to that person.” from the report
Activities and independence
People had individual activity planners and could choose whether to take part or do something different.
“People were able to be flexible and could choose whether they wanted to do an activity or not, or they could choose something else to do.” from the report
Health support
The home worked with health professionals and supported people with health checks, medicines reviews and specialist dietary needs.
“People had annual health checks and medicines reviews.” from the report
Some staff did not feel valued
minorStaff feedback showed that not everyone felt valued. The manager held more supervision meetings to understand and respond to this.
“Results showed 64% staff felt valued, 100% of staff had confidence in the registered manager and deputy.” from the report
Administration work was still being improved
needs fixingAudits found some staff needed to keep up with administration tasks. The paperwork had been changed, but the changes were still being put into practice during the inspection.
“The audits identified staff needed to keep up with administration tasks; the provider changed the paperwork in response to this and at the time of our inspection the changes were being incorporated.” from the report
Survey anonymity
minorPeople had not been able to complete the previous survey anonymously. The service had suggested a change for the next questionnaire.
“People had not been able to answer the last survey anonymously.” from the report
- 01How will you support my relative's particular communication needs, including any gestures, hand signals or key words?
- 02How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and best-interest decisions?
- 03What progress has been made with the administration tasks and paperwork changes mentioned in the inspection?
- 04How do you make sure my relative can choose activities and change their mind if they do not want to take part?
- 05What action was taken after staff feedback showed that 36% of staff did not feel valued?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with observations, discussions, record checks and feedback from health professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 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 Langley House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 2014.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.