CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lansglade House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and received prompt support. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines practice, sufficient staffing, good infection control and appropriate safeguarding procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors did observe patient, caring interactions, but no current rating was given for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture, clear staff responsibilities and effective quality checks. People, relatives and staff were positive about the management.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support and strong management in the areas they reviewed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 November 2023. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a befriender, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and received prompt support. Risk assessments were kept up to date, medicines were safely managed, staffing levels were sufficient, and the home was clean. Staff used safe infection control practices and understood how to report concerns.
Inspectors found warm and respectful interactions between staff and people. They also found effective checks on the quality of the service, with action taken when improvements were needed.
The overall rating was Good, as were Safe and Well-led. The home was also rated Good at its previous inspection, published in October 2018. The other three question ratings were carried forward because they were not reviewed during this inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Call bells were available and people said staff responded quickly.
“Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe and family members told us their relatives received safe care.” from the report
Reliable staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The home did not use agency staff, so people had a consistent team who knew them well.
“The service did not use agency staff, so people were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were given as prescribed. Staff were trained and records were complete, with no gaps in the medicines administration records.
“Medicines Administration Records (MAR) were fully completed with no gaps.” from the report
Caring staff interactions
Inspectors saw staff being patient and caring, including supporting a person who became anxious.
“We observed outstanding staff interactions with people. Staff were patient, caring, and able to anticipate people's needs.” from the report
Strong management checks
The home used quality checks and action plans. Inspectors found that identified actions were completed within the agreed timescales.
“Any areas identified for improvement had action plans put in place with timescales for completion.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What was the previous rating for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and what has changed in those areas since the last comprehensive inspection?
- 02How are risk assessments reviewed when someone's health, mobility or swallowing needs change?
- 03How do you maintain staffing levels when regular staff are unavailable?
- 04How are medicine audits followed up if an error or missed dose is found?
- 05What improvements have been made as a result of recent feedback from people, relatives and staff?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls but some infection risks with toilets, hand basins and waste bins.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 14 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The home was given 48 hours' notice.
Inspectors found good arrangements for testing, vaccination, visiting and the use of personal protective equipment. Staff covered sickness and isolation absences, so there was no agency staffing and people were supported by a consistent team.
The home was rated inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for the five areas of care. Inspectors were somewhat assured about the safety of the building's layout and hygiene because they found problems with some facilities and waste bins.
Safe visiting
Visitors were screened using testing, a health questionnaire and temperature checks. The home also provided a garden room with safety screens for visits.
“All visitors were subject to a range of screening procedures, these included providing evidence of a negative lateral flow test (LFT), completing a COVID-19 questionnaire and having their temperature taken.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had infection control training and were observed using protective equipment correctly. Hand sanitiser was available throughout the home.
“Staff were observed wearing PPE correctly during our inspection.” from the report
Consistent staffing
Staff covered vacant shifts caused by sickness or isolation. The home did not use agency staff, helping people receive support from staff who knew them.
“Staff helped cover vacant shifts caused by staff sickness or isolation and there was no use of agency staff.” from the report
COVID-19 testing and vaccination
People and staff were tested regularly. Staff were vaccinated, and the home was meeting the vaccination requirement for relevant visiting professionals.
“People living in the care home and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19.” from the report
Toilets and hand basins
needs fixingInspectors found infection control risks involving a damaged communal toilet basin, bins without lids and bathroom equipment that was not fit for purpose. The manager acted quickly on some of these issues during the inspection.
“There were some infection prevention and control risks relating to toilet and hand basin facilities around the home.” from the report
Waste storage
needs fixingGeneral waste bins were overflowing and a clinical waste bin containing waste was not secure. The home was waiting for a replacement general waste bin.
“General waste bins positioned at the side of the house were overflowing and the clinical waste bin positioned on the front drive with waste inside was not secure.” from the report
- 01Have the damaged communal toilet basin and bathroom accessories now been repaired or replaced?
- 02How do you make sure indoor bins have lids and that waste bins do not overflow?
- 03Has the replacement general waste bin arrived, and how is clinical waste kept secure?
- 04How are infection control checks carried out now, including checks of toilets, hand basins and waste storage?
- 05What are the home's current arrangements for visiting, testing and protective equipment?
This was a targeted inspection of COVID-19 infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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.
Every inspection of Lansglade House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.