CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Langley Lodge Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Fire risks had not been fully assessed or addressed. People's risk assessments were not always updated when their needs changed, although medicines, infection control and safeguarding arrangements were found to be generally safe.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home did not always follow the legal process when restricting people's liberty. Staff generally had suitable skills and supported people with nutrition, healthcare and personal choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home's quality checks had not identified important problems with restrictions, fire safety, staffing reviews, training and regulatory notifications. Managers were open with inspectors and had begun making improvements.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks around fire safety, restrictions on people's liberty and quality checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. One inspector visited on 20 November, 24 November and 15 December 2022. They spoke with six people, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, effective and well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found people were usually protected from abuse, received their medicines safely and were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
There were important shortfalls. Some people's movement was restricted without the right legal authorisation. Fire risk information and checks were incomplete. The home's monitoring systems had not found these problems, and some staff training and employment checks were incomplete.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in November 2018. Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward. The manager took some immediate action, but CQC requested an action plan and said it would monitor progress.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe in the home. Staff understood how to report suspected abuse and concerns.
“People told us that they felt safe living in the home.” from the report
Medicines
Trained staff supported people with their medicines. Records showed that medicines were given as prescribed and stored safely.
“People received safe support with their medicines provided by trained staff.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People received help with eating and drinking, including special diets. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and recorded the outcomes.
“People were given choice and their likes and dislikes for food were considered.” from the report
Positive staff relationships
Inspectors saw positive interactions between managers, staff and people. Staff said they felt supported in their roles.
“The registered manager and deputy manager were clearly passionate about their roles and we saw excellent interactions between them and people at the service.” from the report
Fire safety
seriousFire risk assessments did not contain all the necessary information. Fire drills had not been completed, fire door strips had been painted over and improvements to the fire alarm were needed.
“Fire drills had not been completed to ensure staff knew what action to take in the event of a fire.” from the report
Restrictions on movement
seriousSome people were not allowed to move freely inside or outside the home without the required mental capacity assessments and legal authorisations. Inspectors said restrictions were not always used in the least restrictive way.
“Mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty safeguard requests had not always been completed when decisions were made on people's behalf and where they were not allowed to move freely either inside or outside the home.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits had not identified the problems found during the inspection. The manager had also not notified CQC about all required events.
“There had been a failure to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service being provided.” from the report
Staffing and training reviews
needs fixingNot all refresher training was completed on time, and staffing levels had not been formally reviewed for over a year. Feedback about whether staffing was sufficient was mixed.
“Staffing levels and people's dependencies had not been formally reviewed for over a year to ensure people needs were met in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the fire risk assessment, fire alarm and fire doors since the inspection?
- 02Which residents had restrictions on movement, and have the required mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications now been completed?
- 03How do you now check that restrictions are the least restrictive option and are in each person's best interests?
- 04How are staffing levels being reviewed to reflect people's needs, especially from 4.30pm overnight?
- 05Which staff training is overdue, and how will you make sure refresher training is completed on time?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control measures but no individual COVID-19 risk assessments.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, shielding, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing possible outbreaks. The home was clean and free from clutter, and staff had infection-control training.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured that COVID-19 risks had been fully assessed and managed. There was no individual COVID-19 risk assessment for each person living in the home.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full quality rating for the home or a rated judgement across all five areas.
Infection-control routines
Staff had temperature checks, hand-washing facilities and places to change uniforms. Staff and residents took part in regular testing.
“All staff and people who lived at Langley Lodge took part in the providers regular testing programme.” from the report
PPE and training
Staff used PPE and had training in infection control, hand washing and putting on and taking off PPE. The provider also offered guidance and support.
“Staff completed training about infection control, hand washing and putting on and taken off PPE.” from the report
Clean environment
The building was clean and uncluttered. Frequently touched surfaces, such as door handles, were cleaned regularly.
“The building looked clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Infection controls were working at the visit
The home had no COVID-19 infection at the time of the inspection, and inspectors were assured about several infection-control arrangements.
“At the time of our inspection the home remained free from the COVID-19 virus.” from the report
No individual COVID-19 risk assessments
needs fixingThe provider had not completed an individual COVID-19 risk assessment for each person living in the home. Inspectors signposted the provider to resources to improve its approach.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider had thoroughly assessed and managed infection risks to people and staff in relation to COVID-19.” from the report
- 01Have individual COVID-19 risk assessments now been completed for every person living in the home?
- 02How often are those individual infection risks reviewed, and what happens if someone's health or circumstances change?
- 03How do you check that staff continue to use PPE safely and follow hand-washing procedures?
- 04How are visitors, new admissions and possible infection outbreaks managed now?
- 05How do you share infection-control updates with residents and their families?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or a full overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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.
Every inspection of Langley Lodge Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Langley Lodge Residential Home →
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Langley Lodge Residential Home →
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.