CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Laurel Bank Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control measures, including visitors, PPE, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- 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?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements during a targeted visit.
Inspectors visited the home on 10 December 2020. The visit was announced and targeted. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus outbreak.
They found that visitors had temperature checks, risk assessments and access to hand-cleaning facilities and personal protective equipment. Communal areas had been rearranged for social distancing, and people were grouped together within the home.
The inspectors were assured about infection control, including the use of protective equipment, testing, admissions, cleaning, ventilation and outbreak management. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report is not an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
The entrance was arranged to support safe visits, with hand-cleaning facilities, protective equipment, risk assessments and temperature checks.
“The entrance hall had been made into a safe space for staff and people to enter the home.” from the report
Clean and well ventilated
The home was clean, comfortable and well ventilated. Communal areas had also been reorganised to support social distancing.
“All areas of the home were comfortable and homely, as well as clean and well ventilated.” from the report
Contact and professional support
The home supported remote assessments by professionals and helped relatives keep in touch when visits were not possible.
“Relatives were supported to have contact remotely when visits to the home were not possible.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed or been updated since the inspection on 10 December 2020?
- 02How do you currently manage visitor checks, hand cleaning, protective equipment and social distancing?
- 03How often are people using the home and staff tested, and how are the results acted on?
- 04What arrangements are in place if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05How can relatives keep in contact if in-person visits are not possible?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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, January 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the home's checks and audits needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 3 and 4 December 2018. The first day was unannounced. They reviewed care records, staff files, policies, audits and other documents. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and observed care and mealtimes.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect, received appropriate support with health and nutrition, and had care plans that reflected their needs. Staff were trained, safely recruited and understood safeguarding procedures.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Checks had not picked up some issues with window restrictors, laundry covers and recording the time of some medicines. The manager acted during the inspection, but inspectors said the home's checking systems needed to cover risks more reliably. The overall rating remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking respectfully and reassuring people during personal care, moving and meals. People said they were treated with dignity.
“Staff were caring towards people and we observed positive and compassionate interaction between staff and the people they were supporting.” from the report
Good care planning
Care assessments and plans contained information about people's individual needs and preferences. Staff were able to explain how they supported people.
“The information within care records provided staff with the information and guidance they needed in order to safely support people with their individual care needs.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
The records reviewed showed suitable recruitment checks and up-to-date training. Staff said they felt supported in their roles.
“The recruitment records we viewed demonstrated that suitable application and recruitment checks were in place.” from the report
Learning from incidents and feedback
The home recorded accidents, safeguarding concerns, complaints and compliments. These were analysed for themes and used to reduce the risk of problems happening again.
“Records indicated that the registered manager used this to learn lessons and reduce potential risk of reoccurrence.” from the report
Checks did not find some risks
needs fixingAudits had not identified two bedroom windows without suitable restrictors, uncovered laundry during transport and an incomplete time record for a medicine. Some issues were fixed during the inspection, but inspectors said the checking systems needed strengthening.
“Systems of audit and service checks were not robust enough to identify issues we found during the inspection.” from the report
Activities could be improved
minorPeople had newspapers, games, puzzles, music and some organised activities. However, relatives and some people wanted more activities, and there was no activity co-ordinator at the inspection.
“Some of the relatives we spoke with told us that they would like to see more activities available for people to engage in.” from the report
Staff appraisals were not current
needs fixingThe staff files reviewed did not contain current appraisals. The manager said this had been identified and planned to complete them in the new year.
“We noted that none of the staff files we reviewed had current appraisals in place.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the audit and checking systems since the inspection, and how do you now check window restrictors and laundry arrangements?
- 02How do you record the time that as-needed medicines are given, and how do you check these records?
- 03What activities are currently available, and has an activity co-ordinator or another arrangement been put in place?
- 04Have all staff received up-to-date appraisals, and how is their ongoing support reviewed?
- 05How do you make sure healthcare professionals and families are told promptly when someone goes into hospital or their needs change?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the home was previously rated Good in all areas at the November 2015 inspection, but Well-led changed to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 2019 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 Laurel Bank Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Laurel Bank Residential Care Home →
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Laurel Bank Residential Care Home →
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Tameside
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. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.