CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Laurieston House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with medicines recording gaps followed up.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 May 2018. One inspector spoke with a person living in the home, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, incident records and quality checks.
The home supported four people at the time of the visit and could care for five people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, a clean environment and staff who understood people's risks and needs.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They were supported to make choices, keep in touch with family, attend activities and plan trips. Care plans were reviewed and staff knew people well.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service met the relevant standards at the time of this inspection. The overall rating remained Good since the previous inspection.
Enough suitable staff
Staffing was planned around people's individual needs, including extra staff for events and outings. Recruitment checks were completed to help ensure staff were safe to work with people.
“There were enough staff to ensure that people's needs were met safely.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors found that staff treated people with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their personal choices.
“People had caring, kind supportive relationships with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Personalised support
People were supported to follow their interests, attend activities and plan trips and holidays. Staff used care plans to understand people's likes, dislikes and communication needs.
“People had care plans which were regularly reviewed to ensure that staff had guidance to enable them to support them in the requested way.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives were kept informed about health matters and could visit freely. People and relatives were included in decisions through regular meetings.
“People and their relatives were included in making decisions about the home through regular meetings.” from the report
Quality checks
The home had audits and checks covering areas such as medicines, incidents and health and safety. Inspectors found these systems effective in supporting improvement.
“There were quality audits in place to measure the success of the service and to continue to develop it.” from the report
Medicines recording gaps
minorInspectors found that errors in medicines administration recording had occurred. Managers followed these up and reminded staff to sign the records when gaps were found.
“If there were any errors with medicines administration recording these were followed up by the deputy manager or the registered manager with the staff involved; for example to remind staff to sign medicines administration records when gaps had been highlighted..” from the report
- 01How do you check medicines administration records each day, and how do you prevent gaps in signing?
- 02How often are each person's risk assessments and care plans reviewed, and what happens when their needs change?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels remain suitable for outings, activities and changes in people's needs?
- 04How are people who communicate less verbally supported to make choices and raise concerns?
- 05What arrangements would be made for end of life care if a person living here needed it?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; no one was receiving end of life care, so that aspect was not reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 2018 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 Laurieston House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.