CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Laurel Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks, medicines, infection control and the premises were managed well, although some call-bell responses took more than five minutes.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supervision, and people received support with food, drink and health needs. Some people said meals did not always match the menu, although alternatives were available.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, offering choices and encouraging independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's needs and preferences. People could maintain relationships, join activities and receive support at the end of life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as approachable and open. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some delays in call-bell responses and occasional changes to the advertised menu.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. One inspector and an Expert by Experience visited on 22 August 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff on each shift to keep people safe, although people sometimes waited for help and some call bells took more than five minutes to answer.
People were treated kindly and with respect. Their choices were taken seriously, care was personalised, medicines were managed safely, and there was a varied activities programme. The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection, published in February 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, patient and respectful. Inspectors also observed compassionate interactions.
“People told us they were happy with the care provided at Laurel Lodge. They said the staff were kind and caring and that they were treated with respect.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine records checked by inspectors were complete and showed that people received their medicines when needed. Staff training and competency were checked.
“The medicine records we checked had been completed correctly and showed people had received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped plan their care and were supported with their individual preferences, communication needs and relationships.
“People had contributed to the assessment and planning of their care when they moved into Laurel Lodge.” from the report
Activities and relationships
There was a varied programme of activities, and people were supported to keep important relationships and take part in interests they valued.
“There was a varied activity programme in place including games, quizzes, clubs and trips out.” from the report
Good management
Inspectors found clear leadership, regular quality checks and evidence that lessons were learned when things went wrong.
“The governance structure in place ensured that people received good quality care.” from the report
Call-bell response times
needs fixingSome people and relatives said they sometimes waited for assistance. Most calls were answered within five minutes, but some took longer, so the manager agreed to keep monitoring this.
“Analysis of call bell response times for the week prior to our inspection visit showed that most calls had been answered within five minutes but there were occasions when the response had been over this time.” from the report
Staff sometimes busy
minorRelatives gave mixed views about staffing. Staff were observed to be very busy, particularly around lunchtime, although inspectors found they responded to requests and the home had increased night staffing.
“The staff seem rushed off their feet. They are forever running around for people. The staff are very busy, and lunchtimes can be difficult.” from the report
Menu changes
minorSome people said meals did not always match the written menu. They said alternatives were available when requested.
“Some people said the meals on offer did not always match what was on the menu.” from the report
Agency staff guidance
minorSome people felt agency staff occasionally needed more direction than permanent staff. Inspectors still found staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.
“Some people commented they found agency staff required more direction on occasions then the permanent staff.” from the report
- 01How quickly do staff usually answer call bells, including at lunchtime and overnight?
- 02What do you do when call-bell response times are longer than five minutes?
- 03How do you make sure the meal served matches the menu, and what alternatives are available?
- 04How are agency staff introduced to people's needs and supported to work safely?
- 05What changes have been made since the previous inspection in February 2017?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 September 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, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some medicines and dietary records needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 and 26 January 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience reviewed care records, medicines records, staff training, meeting minutes and quality checks. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, managers and a healthcare professional.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe care planning and kind staff. People were supported with food, drinks, activities, healthcare and decisions about their care.
There were some issues to watch. Inspectors found gaps in medicines administration records on one day. There had also been a delay in passing on one person's changed dietary needs, although managers acted immediately. The home had introduced extra checks and further medicines training.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. People said staff responded quickly when they used their call buzzer.
“Our observations and discussions with people, relatives and staff on the day of our inspection showed that there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed treating people warmly and respectfully. People were involved in choices about their care and daily lives.
“We observed that all staff engaged with people in a friendly and respectful manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and likes. Staff knew people well and adjusted support to individual choices.
“Care plans helped staff to understand what care people needed and to get to know people as individuals.” from the report
Activities and interests
People could join activities such as exercise, games, quizzes, karaoke and entertainment. Inspectors saw people engaged and enjoying an activity.
“On both occasions the atmosphere was friendly and encouraging and we saw people were smiling and very engaged in the activity.” from the report
Improved leadership and premises
Inspectors found significant improvements to safety and the environment since the current owners took over. Managers used audits and meetings to monitor and improve care.
“At this inspection we found that there had been significant improvements made to the safety of the premises and enhancements made to the environment.” from the report
Medicine recording gaps
needs fixingInspectors found gaps in the medicines administration records on a particular day. Managers responded with more medicines training and daily checks of signatures.
“We checked completed MARs and found gaps on a particular day where a staff member had not recorded whether that person had been given their medicine as prescribed.” from the report
Delay in dietary information
needs fixingKitchen staff reported a delay in receiving information about one person's changed dietary needs. This created a risk that the wrong food could have been prepared, but managers took immediate action.
“There had been a delay in receiving information of one persons amended dietary needs recently which meant there was a risk they may have prepared the wrong food for the person.” from the report
Outstanding DoLS outcomes
minorThe manager had submitted several applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, but the outcomes were not yet known at the inspection. The applications were being kept under review.
“The registered manager had submitted a number of applications for DoLS to the supervisory body (local authority) but the outcome of these were not known yet.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every medicine administration is recorded correctly?
- 02What process ensures that changes to a person's dietary needs reach kitchen staff without delay?
- 03What is the current position of any outstanding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a complaint, and how will the home respond?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home and covered all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 2017 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 Lodge Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 August 2016.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.