CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Laurel Villas Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met assessed needs and infection prevention arrangements were suitable. Some fire doors had been propped open, but this was addressed during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this focused inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this focused inspection, although people, relatives and staff praised the caring nature of the manager and staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this focused inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and oversight of care and premises records were inconsistent. Relatives and staff said the home was approachable and well managed, but formal feedback from relatives had not been collected recently.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring support, but oversight and audits still needed improvement.
This was a focused inspection on 22 March 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed a mealtime, toured parts of the building and checked care, medicine, staffing, safety and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall and Safe was rated Good. Inspectors found improvements in medicines management and staff recruitment. People were described as safe, well supported and cared for by staff who had the right training and checks.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Audits were irregular, there was no clear schedule for some checks and some hazards had been missed. The manager dealt with the hazards found during the inspection, but stronger and more consistent oversight was still needed.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given as prescribed. Staff had received training and managers had checked their competence.
“Medicines were stored and administered as prescribed, by staff who had received training and had their competencies checked by managers.” from the report
Suitable staffing
Recruitment procedures had been followed and staffing levels were maintained at the level assessed as necessary. People and relatives said there were usually enough staff.
“The rotas showed staffing levels had been maintained at the level assessed as needed.” from the report
Kind and person-centred care
Inspectors found staff were committed to people and supported them to have choice and control in their lives.
“People received safe care from staff who were committed to providing high-quality care.” from the report
Infection prevention
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Irregular audits
needs fixingChecks on care and premises records were not completed consistently. There was no schedule setting out how often some audits should be done.
“Audits had not been completed at regular intervals and there was no schedule to identify how frequently some audits needed to be completed.” from the report
Missed hazards
needs fixingInspectors found that some opportunities to identify potential hazards had been missed. Fire doors had also been propped open, although this was dealt with during the inspection.
“Opportunities to identify potential hazards had been missed.” from the report
Limited formal feedback
minorMost relatives said they had not been asked for feedback through surveys or questionnaires in the previous 12 months.
“Most relatives we spoke with said they had not been asked to give their feedback on the service in a formal way, such as through surveys or questionnaires.” from the report
- 01What audit schedule is now in place, and how do you check that audits are completed regularly?
- 02What checks are carried out to identify fire safety and other environmental hazards?
- 03How do you make sure medicines records and staff competency checks remain up to date?
- 04How do you now collect and act on formal feedback from relatives?
- 05What has changed since the inspection to improve the Requires Improvement rating for well-led?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 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, April 2020
Laurel Villas Limited is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but unsafe medicines processes and weak quality checks.
Inspectors visited on 26 February and 11 March 2020. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with five people and six staff, and reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
People generally described the care as kind and respectful. Inspectors found enough staff, a clean home, good support with meals and healthcare, personalised care plans and activities that people enjoyed.
However, medicines were not always managed safely. Risk and accident records were not consistently complete, and quality checks did not always identify or correct problems. The registered manager made changes during and after the inspection, but these needed time to become established.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 23 August 2018.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough qualified staff on duty and saw that they were deployed effectively. People said staff responded promptly and knew them well.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and provide companionship.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed respectful and dignified interactions.
“People were treated with respect, compassion and kindness, they were given emotional support when needed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records were written in a person-centred way and staff followed the guidance. People's changing needs and communication preferences were recorded.
“People received personalised care, which met their changing needs.” from the report
Good activities and choice
The home offered activities and supported people to choose whether to take part. People also had choices about meals and drinks.
“One person said, "You're kept well entertained here, singers, dominoes, bingo, but you can say no.” from the report
Positive staff culture
Staff said they felt supported and valued. Inspectors found management receptive to feedback and willing to improve.
“There was a positive culture at the service.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousRecords did not always show that medicines were stored safely and at the right temperatures. Some staff guidance was missing or unclear, and medicine audits had not found these problems.
“The systems used by the registered manager were ineffective to ensure medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Risk information was inconsistent
needs fixingRisk records were not always up to date, so staff did not always have accurate written guidance on how to keep people safe. Accident and incident records were also not always fully completed.
“Documentation relating to risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were not consistently kept up to date.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits did not always identify or escalate risks, and action plans were not always created or completed. Inspectors said the improved systems needed time to become established.
“Quality assurance and management monitoring processes in place had not identified the shortfalls we found during this inspection.” from the report
Recruitment records were incomplete
minorRecruitment checks were generally safe, but interview records were not always kept to show how hiring decisions had been made.
“When new staff were recruited, the provider had failed to keep a record of the interview to demonstrate the decision-making process.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine storage, administration records and guidance since the inspection?
- 02How do you now check that thickening powder and creams are recorded and used correctly?
- 03How are risk assessments and care guidance kept up to date when a person's needs change?
- 04How do audits identify problems, and how do you check that action plans have been completed?
- 05How do you make sure interview records and other recruitment evidence are retained?
The inspection began as a focused review of risks after concerns at another location, but became a full comprehensive inspection when some evidence of similar risks was found; all five key questions were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 2020 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 Villas Limited
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.