CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Laurel Court (Didsbury)
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Laurel Court (Didsbury) was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control during a recent COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control. Inspectors held a video call on 10 February 2022 and visited the home on 14 February 2022. The inspection was announced.
Inspectors found that visitor testing, personal protective equipment, hand hygiene and infection control arrangements were in place. The home was clean, and staff had received training in using protective equipment and washing their hands.
Staffing levels had been maintained during the recent outbreak. Office and domestic staff helped at meal times. Essential care givers were able to keep visiting, following the required testing arrangements.
The home was inspected but not rated overall, and the safe question was also inspected but not rated. This report does not give a full assessment of care quality across all five areas.
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home visibly clean, with regular checks by department heads and managers. People and essential care givers also said it was always clean.
“The home was visibly clean throughout, with regular checks being made by the heads of departments and managers.” from the report
Infection control
The home had arrangements for visitor testing, safe use of protective equipment, social distancing, admissions and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Support for visitors
Essential care givers could continue visiting during the outbreak, provided they followed the required testing arrangements.
“Essential care givers had been able to visit their relatives during the recent outbreak and completed weekly COVID-19 tests as per the guidance.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training in protective equipment and hand hygiene. Their practice was observed regularly, and they were told about changes to guidance.
“Staff had received training in the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and hand hygiene.” from the report
Staffing maintained
The provider said staffing levels were maintained during the outbreak, with domestic and office staff helping at meal times.
“Staffing levels had been maintained during the recent outbreak, with domestic and office staff assisting at meal times.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing levels being maintained now, and are office or domestic staff still helping at meal times?
- 02What testing arrangements are currently required for visitors and essential care givers?
- 03How often are staff observed using personal protective equipment and following hand hygiene procedures?
- 04How would the home manage a new infection outbreak, and how would visits be affected?
- 05Has the renovation work on two households finished, and did it affect residents' care or daily life?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating of the other areas of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, although people gave mixed views about the food.
Inspectors visited on 9 and 14 January 2019. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and mealtimes, and reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records and the home.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staff understood people's needs and care plans were regularly reviewed.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in October 2017, when it was rated Requires Improvement overall and breached requirements about managing risks, staffing levels and governance. Inspectors found these requirements were now being met.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were stored, given and reviewed safely. Staff had competency checks and people received medicines in line with doctors' instructions.
“This meant that medicines were administered safely and people using the service were not placed at risk.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with patience and respect. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy, ask for consent and support independence.
“We observed care interactions that were kind, and sensitive.” from the report
Individual care planning
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, abilities and support needs. Staff were updated about changes and plans were reviewed regularly.
“Care plans were individualised and gave guidance for the nurses and care staff to follow; enabling them to meet people's needs.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, music therapy and trips into the community. Inspectors saw people taking part in music, playing instruments, laughing and singing.
“We were able to evidence the difference that music had made to people living at Laurel Court and the positive outcomes achieved by individuals as a result of taking part in music therapy.” from the report
Improved management
The home had acted on the previous inspection findings about risks, staffing and governance. Audits, feedback and action plans were being used to improve practice.
“At this inspection we found that things had improved and the service was now compliant in these areas.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorSome people praised the meals, but others considered the food poor. New menus had been introduced during the week of the inspection, so families should ask how people now rate the meals.
“We received mixed feedback about the food on offer at the home.” from the report
- 01What meals and alternatives are available now, and how do residents give feedback about the food?
- 02How are staffing levels decided for each household and shift, and how are delays in answering call bells monitored?
- 03How often are my relative's care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and how will I be told about changes?
- 04What activities are available for someone who prefers one-to-one support or spends time in their room?
- 05How can relatives raise a complaint, and how will they be told what action was taken?
This was a comprehensive inspection of the overall service, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led; all five ratings were given at this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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 Court (Didsbury)
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.