CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lansbury Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. This included visitor checks, social distancing, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, safe admissions and outbreak management.
- 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, January 2021
Lansbury Court was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the coronavirus response.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control because of the coronavirus outbreak response.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. They found checks for visitors, social distancing and shielding measures, safe admissions, effective use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak planning.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other care areas.
Entry checks
Staff and visitors had their temperature checked, wore masks, used hand sanitiser and completed a health declaration when entering.
“Every staff member and visitor had their temperature taken at the door and were given a mask to wear.” from the report
Clean environment
The environment was clean, with extra cleaning of surfaces that people touched frequently.
“The environment was clean. Additional cleaning was taking place, including of frequently touched surfaces.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough protective equipment, and staff had training in infection control and using it safely.
“There was sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, aprons, gloves and visors.” from the report
Family contact
When local visiting restrictions were in place, staff helped people keep in touch with relatives through calls, video calls and social media messages.
“Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing.” from the report
Regular testing
People living in the home and staff were regularly taking part in coronavirus testing.
“People and staff were regularly taking part in the coronavirus testing programme.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 27 November 2020?
- 02How do you currently train staff to put on and take off protective equipment safely?
- 03How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 04How are residents supported to keep in touch with family when visiting restrictions apply?
- 05How do you currently manage coronavirus testing and any infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess the other care areas in full. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records needing more detail.
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection on 29 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives were positive about the care. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, safe medicines systems, respectful care and a range of activities.
There were some areas to improve. Records did not always give enough guidance about specific health conditions or medicines. Food and drink monitoring records also needed more detail. Some areas of the building looked tired, although redecoration was planned.
The previous published rating was Good in October 2017. An inspection in April 2019 was withdrawn because of an issue with some information gathered. This report was a planned re-inspection because of that issue.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and supporting their dignity and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and had their dignity and independence supported.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored, monitored, given and disposed of safely. People received their medicines when they should.
“Medicines were stored securely, closely monitored, ordered, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered varied activities, including trips out, events and one-to-one sessions. Staff also helped people maintain friendships and welcomed relatives.
“Regular person-centred activities took place. These included trips out and internal events such as a bingo, pamper sessions, bowling and dancing.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff received induction, supervision, appraisal and training.
“Staff told us there was enough training to enable them to meet people's needs.” from the report
Open management
People and staff said the management team was approachable. The provider had quality monitoring and worked with other professionals.
“The management team were open and approachable which allowed people to share their views and raise concerns.” from the report
Health-condition records
needs fixingSome care records did not contain enough information to guide staff safely when managing particular health conditions, including diabetes or epilepsy.
“Some records required additional information to guide staff on how to safely manage some people's health conditions.” from the report
Food and drink monitoring
needs fixingSome records did not clearly show the ideal totals for people's food and drink. The provider was asked to review these records.
“Some records required updating to provide additional information in supporting staff to monitor the total amount of food and drinks people were having.” from the report
Tired areas of the building
minorInspectors noted that some parts of the home looked tired. The provider said a redecoration programme was planned for that year.
“Some areas of the home were looking tired.” from the report
- 01What extra guidance has been added to care records for people with diabetes, epilepsy or other specific health conditions?
- 02How do you check that medicines records contain all the information staff need?
- 03How do you record the target amounts of food and drink for each person, and what happens if someone has less than this?
- 04What work has been completed or planned to improve the areas that inspectors said looked tired?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in care planning and decisions?
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection of the care home, covering the premises and care provided; all five CQC questions were rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 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 Lansbury Court
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Sunderland
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 £950 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.