CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Larpool Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. They found arrangements for visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Larpool Lane was rated Good overall; a targeted inspection found good infection prevention and control measures, while Safe was inspected but not rated.
Inspectors visited on 22 October 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. They looked at infection prevention and control measures because the home had been identified as a designated care setting.
Inspectors found separate laundry and kitchen areas in the dedicated Covid-19 unit. They found good arrangements for personal protective equipment, visitor checks, social distancing, admissions and testing.
The overall rating was Good. The Safe question was inspected but not rated. Inspectors said they were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed.
Separate Covid-19 facilities
The home had created separate laundry and kitchen areas in the dedicated Covid-19 unit to reduce the risk of infection spreading to other areas and people.
“A separate laundry and kitchen area had been developed in the dedicated Covid-19 unit to avoid disruption to others areas of the service and people.” from the report
Visitor arrangements
Visitors were risk assessed and visits were arranged and spaced to reduce possible infection transmission.
“Thorough processes were in place to ensure any visitors to the service were appropriate risk assessed and managed.” from the report
PPE and testing
The registered manager checked PPE supplies, had training to take swabs, and a regular testing programme was in place.
“The registered manager had completed training to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge in order to take swabs effectively.” from the report
Infection control assurance
Inspectors were assured that the home met good infection prevention and control guidance for a designated care setting.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently risk assessed and how are visits spaced to reduce infection transmission?
- 02How are PPE supplies checked and kept plentiful?
- 03How often are people using the home and staff tested, and how are positive results managed?
- 04Are the separate laundry and kitchen areas in the dedicated Covid-19 unit still in use?
- 05How are new admissions assessed and managed to reduce the risk of infection?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the other four key questions were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 November 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but fire exits, staff supervision and activities needed attention.
Inspectors visited on 12 and 19 January 2018 without giving notice. They spoke with people living at the home, a relative and staff. They observed care and activities, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
The overall rating was Good, as were all five areas inspected. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training and person-centred care.
There were some issues. Fire exit signs had not been replaced after redecoration, and moss on fire exit ramps could cause falls. Some staff supervisions were overdue, planned activities were not taking place during the inspection, and quality checks had not found the environmental problems.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in October 2015 and remained Good. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns, although the local authority had been monitoring the home and had agreed an improvement plan with the provider.
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring and attentive. Inspectors saw friendly conversations and respectful support, including when people were anxious or distressed.
“Staff were polite and kind towards people throughout our inspection.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans included people's preferences, and staff knew their likes and dislikes. People were involved in decisions about their care and personal spaces.
“Care plans had been developed so they were specific to people and the way they wished to be supported.” from the report
Medicines and staffing
Medicines were stored and managed safely, with staff training and competency checks. Inspectors found no evidence that staffing levels were unsafe.
“Medicines had been managed and stored safely. Staff had received medicines training and people told us they received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
People's views were heard
The manager regularly sought feedback through meetings and questionnaires. An action plan was used to respond to feedback.
“The provider completed an annual questionnaire to monitor the quality of the care and support provided.” from the report
Fire exit safety
seriousFire exit signs had not been replaced after redecoration. Moss on the fire exit ramps could increase the risk of falls. The manager took action during the inspection.
“Moss was growing on fire exit ramps which could pose a risk of falls.” from the report
Checks did not find environmental problems
needs fixingRegular quality checks were completed, but they had not identified the missing signs or moss-covered ramps.
“Although quality assurance audits had been completed by the registered manager on a regular basis they had failed to identify concerns in relation to the environment.” from the report
Overdue staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff supervision meetings had not happened as regularly as the provider's policy required. The manager was taking action.
“Records showed regular supervisions had taken place, although we found some were overdue and had not been completed in line with the provider's policy.” from the report
Limited planned activities
minorThe manager recognised that activities had been lacking and was reviewing them. No planned activities took place during the inspection, although staff spent time with people informally.
“Throughout the inspection, we found there were no planned activities taking place but staff were seen spending time with people chatting, enjoying puzzles and art and crafts.” from the report
- 01Have the fire exit signs been replaced, and how are fire exit ramps now checked and kept free of moss?
- 02How often are staff supervision meetings completed, and how do you make sure none become overdue?
- 03What regular activities are now available, and how are they based on each person's preferences?
- 04What actions from the local authority service improvement plan have been completed?
- 05How do your quality checks identify environmental safety problems before they affect people?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions, including records, medicines, staffing, the environment and feedback from people and visitors. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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 Larpool Lane
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodstayed Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.