CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Larwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, visitor arrangements, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and managing infection outbreaks. The provider also described measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, visiting and COVID-19 measures.
This was a targeted inspection on 8 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and any COVID-19-related staffing pressures. The inspection was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors found robust visitor checks, safe use of protective equipment, regular COVID-19 testing and clear arrangements for managing positive results. They were also assured that the home was following shielding, social distancing and visiting guidance.
The home supported people with easy-read and pictorial information about the pandemic. Inspectors also found the home clean, hygienic and well maintained, with extra cleaning of frequently touched areas.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means this report does not give a new overall rating or full ratings for the five key questions.
Infection control
The home had visitor checks, safe protective equipment arrangements, testing and procedures for responding to positive results.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visits were managed through a booking system and relatives and friends were given clear information about current guidance.
“Relatives and friends received clear communication from the Registered Manager regarding current guidance and visiting.” from the report
Accessible information
People were given pictorial and easy-read information to help them understand the pandemic and the rules in the home.
“The registered manager and staff ensured that people living at Larwood House fully understood the ongoing pandemic” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, hygienic and well maintained, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The home looked clean, hygienic and maintained to a high standard.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked and how are visits booked and managed?
- 02How do you now manage COVID-19 testing and positive results for people living here and staff?
- 03How do you support people to make informed decisions about testing and vaccination?
- 04What measures are in place if COVID-19 causes staffing pressures?
- 05How often are high-touch areas cleaned and how do staff use and dispose of protective equipment?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide full ratings for the five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that nutrition records and specialist food guidance were not always handled consistently.
Inspectors visited the home on 22 August 2018. They spoke with five people, the registered manager and five staff. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff records, policies and other management information.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found kind staff, safe medicines management, personalised care, meaningful activities and effective management systems.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Nutrition and fluid records were not always accurate or updated promptly. Staff did not always follow specialist advice about food for people with swallowing difficulties. The overall rating stayed Good because inspectors found no significant evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff. Staff respected privacy, personal space and individual choices.
“People were cared for by staff who were kind and compassionate.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about meals, activities and where they spent time. They were encouraged to take part in daily tasks and community activities.
“People were encouraged to be independent and participate in daily living activities, suited to their ability.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found medicines were stored and recorded safely. Staff had training and competency checks, and recruitment checks were completed.
“Medicines were managed safely by staff who had received training, which was followed by competency assessments conducted by senior staff.” from the report
Good communication
Staff used picture cards, sign language and other approaches to help people express their views. This information was included in meetings and care decisions.
“The provider took steps to ensure people received information in a format they could understand and enabled them to contribute to discussions and decisions made about their care.” from the report
Active quality monitoring
The management team reviewed a development plan each month and used audits, feedback and contract reviews to identify improvements.
“The management and auditing systems in place were used effectively to identify where improvements were needed.” from the report
Nutrition records were inconsistent
needs fixingPaper and computer records did not always match or give enough detail. This included records about weight changes and food supplements, which could make consistent support harder.
“Weight, diet and nutrition records were not always accurate and were not always updated in a timely manner.” from the report
Specialist food advice was not always followed
seriousInspectors saw one person receive food that did not follow all speech and language therapy recommendations intended to reduce choking risk. The required best interest decision had not been recorded at the time.
“This meal did not follow all the recommendations of the SALT team which were in place to reduce the risk of this person choking.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure paper and computer nutrition records agree and are updated promptly?
- 02How are people's weights, fluid intake and nutritional supplements monitored when they are at risk of weight loss or dehydration?
- 03How do you check that speech and language therapy advice about food texture and preparation is followed at every meal?
- 04What best interest decisions are recorded when staff need to depart from specialist food advice?
- 05How do you make sure planned outings can still go ahead when a staff member is absent?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, with information gathered from people, staff, records and outside professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 October 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 Larwood House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 September 2015.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.