CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lavender Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitors, PPE, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection controls, but this was a focused review rather than a full care assessment.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found good practice. Visitors were screened, the home was clean and tidy, personal protective equipment was available and used properly, and regular COVID-19 testing took place.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report therefore does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Visitor screening
Visitors were checked before entering, including temperature checks and a negative lateral flow test.
“Visitors to the service were robustly screened for COVID-19. Staff checked visitors' temperatures and ensured they had a negative lateral flow test before entering the home.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with a cleaning schedule and regular checks of the environment and cleaning.
“The service was clean and tidy. There was a cleaning schedule in place which was followed by domestic assistants.” from the report
PPE and testing
PPE was available and used appropriately. People living in the home and staff took part in regular COVID-19 testing.
“PPE was readily available, and staff were wearing this appropriately. Staff had received training in its use” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The provider offered window and pod visits, as well as some indoor visits for essential care givers and people receiving end of life care.
“The provider facilitated visits for people living in the home. The provider offered window visits and visits in a specially adapted pod.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place to manage any COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 02How are visitors screened and tested before entering the home now?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested for COVID-19, and what happens after a positive result?
- 04How are PPE use and infection control practice checked for staff?
- 05What visiting arrangements are available now, including for essential care givers and people receiving end of life care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection of all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some work needed on risk records, CCTV consent and activities.
The inspection took place on 3 and 4 October 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and external professionals, observed care and checked records and the building.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors saw kind relationships, personalised care, suitable staff training, good food and effective work with health professionals.
Inspectors found some areas that needed attention. One person's health-related risk had not been fully assessed and monitored. The home also needed better records showing people's agreement to CCTV, better recording of informal concerns and a review of activities.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“We observed and people told us they were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and communication requirements. People and relatives said they received the support they wanted and needed.
“People's support plans was personalised and based upon their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff received training, supervision and appraisals. New staff had an induction that included shadowing experienced staff.
“Staff received the training they needed to carry out their roles.” from the report
Good management
The management team monitored quality, listened to feedback and worked with external professionals. The registered manager was visible and knew people well.
“The registered manager completed a range of audits to monitor the quality and improve standards.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were supported to eat and drink enough, with choices of meals and regular drinks and snacks. Staff also helped people access healthcare.
“We observed lunch being served and found it was a pleasant experience for people.” from the report
One health risk was not fully assessed
needs fixingInspectors found that a health-related risk for one person had not been fully assessed or monitored. The manager began addressing this during the inspection.
“However, we identified for one person a health based risk had not been fully assessed and monitored.” from the report
CCTV consultation records
needs fixingThe home used CCTV in communal areas, but records did not show that everyone had been consulted or had agreed to being monitored. Inspectors recommended reviewing the process and paperwork.
“However, there was no recorded evidence people had been consulted about the use of CCTV or that they had all agreed to being monitored in this way.” from the report
Activities could be improved
minorActivities were available, but some people, relatives and staff said the home would benefit from more outside entertainment. The management team said they would review the activities programme.
“Some people, staff and relatives told us they felt the service would benefit from more outside entertainment being brought into the home.” from the report
Informal concerns were not recorded
minorThe home had a complaints process, but informal complaints and concerns were not being recorded at the time of inspection. The manager said this would be arranged in future.
“Informal complaints/concerns were not being recorded. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would arrange for this to take place in future.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the inspection to make sure every person's health-related risk was fully assessed and monitored?
- 02How do you now record people's consultation and agreement about CCTV in communal areas?
- 03What changes have you made to the activities programme, including outside entertainment?
- 04How are informal complaints and concerns recorded and followed up now?
- 05How do you check that care plans remain personalised and reflect changes in people's needs and preferences?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; all five ratings were based on this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 November 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 Lavender Court
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 October 2012.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Middlesbrough
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 £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.