CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Larkfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicine records were not always accurate, and one person did not receive a prescribed medicine on one occasion. Other safety arrangements, including staffing, risk assessments, safeguarding and infection control, were judged effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received relevant training, supervision and appraisals. People had suitable care plans, support with food and access to healthcare services.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and consideration. People were involved in day-to-day decisions and their privacy was respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. People were supported with activities, relationships, complaints and end-of-life planning.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff were viewed positively, and staff said they worked well as a team. The provider used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicine records were not always accurate and one person missed a prescribed dose.
Inspectors visited without notice on 13 June 2018. They observed care, spoke with staff, the manager, relatives and a visiting GP, and checked care plans, staff records, audits and medicine records.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in January 2016. Care was found to be effective, kind, responsive and well-led. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and provided activities and healthcare support.
Safe care was rated Requires Improvement. Medicine administration records were not always completed accurately. Inspectors found that one person had not received a newly prescribed medicine on one occasion, although medicines were securely stored and staff were trained.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff respond calmly when people were anxious and support people with dignity and privacy.
“The atmosphere at the service throughout our inspection was relaxed and friendly” from the report
Good understanding of people's needs
Staff knew people's routines, preferences, communication needs and risk plans. Care plans included detailed guidance for individual health and support needs.
“Staff we spoke with knew the people they supported well.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in varied activities and maintain important relationships with relatives.
“People received support to take part in activities that were meaningful to them and met their need for social stimulation.” from the report
Positive leadership
Relatives and staff spoke positively about the management. The provider used meetings, surveys and audits to check quality.
“Staff told us that the registered manager provided them with strong leadership and support.” from the report
Medicine records and missed dose
seriousSome medicine administration records did not show accurately what had been given. Inspectors found that one person had missed a dose of a newly prescribed medicine on one occasion.
“one person's MAR had not been signed by staff to confirm they had administered a medicine that morning” from the report
- 01What changes have you made since the inspection to make sure medicine administration records are completed accurately every time?
- 02How do you check that each person's medicine stock matches the records and that no prescribed doses are missed?
- 03What action is taken if a medicine record is unsigned or does not match the medicine stock?
- 04How are relatives told about a missed or delayed medicine dose and the steps taken afterwards?
- 05How often are medicine audits now completed, and who reviews the results?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; the previous overall rating from January 2016 was also considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 July 2018 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 Larkfield
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 March 2013.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.