CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Laurel Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found detailed and regularly reviewed risk assessments, enough trained staff, safe recruitment and safely managed medicines. The premises and equipment were maintained, and infection control systems were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences and were reviewed with people, families and health professionals. Staff received varied training and support, and people were supported with nutrition, healthcare and legal consent arrangements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, offered choices and involved people and relatives in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and included a wide range of activities and trips. The home recorded end of life wishes, supported families and investigated the two complaints received in the previous 12 months.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable leadership, a positive culture and effective audits. People, relatives, staff and health professionals were encouraged to give feedback, and the home acted on learning and suggestions.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Laurel Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong staffing and leadership.
This was a planned inspection over 20 and 21 March 2019. Inspectors reviewed information before visiting, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, detailed care plans, safe medicines systems, good healthcare support and respectful care.
People and relatives spoke very positively about the home. Inspectors also found strong support for staff, personalised activities, good end of life care and systems for learning from incidents and complaints.
The home was still rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 30 August 2016. CQC said it would continue to monitor the home and inspect it according to its schedule for services rated Good.
Staffing and training
The home staffed above its core numbers and used training based on individual staff needs. Staff said they felt well supported and confident in their work.
“The provider had a pro-active, detailed training process that fully supported staff and actively encouraged their future professional development.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and patiently. People and relatives said staff respected their choices, privacy and dignity.
“People and relatives consistently told us how they were treated with exceptional warmth, compassion and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were detailed and individual. Staff supported people's preferences, independence, communication needs and social activities.
“People received personalised care and support in an individualised way, which was planned and delivered to meet their needs.” from the report
End of life care
The home worked with health professionals and recorded people's end of life wishes. Families could stay overnight when someone was nearing the end of life.
“People experienced a comfortable, dignified and pain free death.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The home used audits, meetings and incident reviews to identify improvements. Inspectors found evidence that learning was shared and changes were made.
“There was evidence that learning from incidents and investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Has the computerised medicines administration system mentioned in the report been introduced, and how are medicines checked now?
- 02Have the planned overhead hoists in every bedroom been installed?
- 03Have the planned toilet improvements been completed, including the conversion of the staff toilet?
- 04How would you support my relative's particular dietary needs, including any risk of choking or need for a modified diet?
- 05How would you involve our family in care reviews and keep us informed if our relative's health changes?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care, records, staffing, medicines and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 May 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Laurel Care Home was rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care with effective leadership.
Inspectors visited on 30 and 31 August 2016 without telling the home in advance. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, staff files, audits, rosters and policies.
They found enough skilled staff, safe medicines systems and suitable safeguarding arrangements. People said they felt safe and staff responded quickly when help was needed. Staff had training, supervision and support.
People were treated with kindness and dignity. Staff knew people's preferences, involved them in care decisions and supported their independence. Care plans were reviewed and activities included group events and one-to-one support.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the service met the relevant standards at the time of this inspection. The previous inspection in September 2014 had found no concerns.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough skilled staff, with staffing levels linked to people's individual needs. Call bells were answered promptly and staff were not rushed.
“There were enough skilled staff deployed to support people and meet their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. The home also checked medicine systems regularly.
“Medication administration records were appropriately completed and staff had signed to show that people had been given their medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient and polite. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity, having their privacy respected and being encouraged to do what they could for themselves.
“We saw staff treating people in a dignified way, respecting their privacy and encouraging their independence.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and care needs. Care plans included personal information and were updated when needs changed.
“Care plans were developed and maintained about every aspect of people's care and were centred on individual needs and requirements.” from the report
Good leadership
Staff felt supported and valued. The provider and manager used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor and improve the service.
“There were systems in place to review the quality of service in the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you decide whether there are enough staff for my relative's changing needs?
- 02How will you keep my relative's medicines records accurate and tell us about any changes?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will our family be involved?
- 04What activities and one-to-one support would be available if my relative did not want to join group activities?
- 05Who should we contact if we have a concern, and how will we be told what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key areas, using conversations, observations and records; the report says the previous inspection in September 2014 found no concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 September 2016 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 Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2011.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.