CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lavender Fields
Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Lavender Fields was rated Good overall, but well-led was rated Requires Improvement because food, activities and responses to feedback needed further improvement.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous Requires Improvement rating in 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and lunch, and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality records.
The home had improved enough that it was no longer breaching regulations. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity, supported by trained staff and given personalised care. Medicines, infection control, risk assessments and safeguarding systems were found to be good.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led remained Requires Improvement because the home had not yet shown lasting improvement in the quality of main meals and activities, or clear evidence that residents' and relatives' feedback had led to action.
Safe care and staffing
Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, enough staff and safe recruitment. Call bells were answered promptly.
“We saw enough staff working in the home during the inspection and call bells were answered promptly.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff administering them had extra training and competency checks.
“Medicine administration records were complete and accurate.” from the report
Respectful support
People were treated with dignity and encouraged to make their own choices. Staff supported privacy and independence.
“Staff supported people to make choices about their daily life.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories and communication needs. End-of-life plans recorded important wishes such as visitors, faith and music.
“Care plans included a 'This is me' section which was written in consultation with the person and their relatives if appropriate.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed accidents and incidents, looked for patterns and changed care plans or training when needed.
“Investigation records were thorough and included any action plans and the sharing of lessons learned.” from the report
Too few activities
needs fixingThe activity programme had been reduced because of COVID-19 restrictions and vacancies. Relatives said activities lacked creativity and there was not enough to do.
“The service had operated a reduced activity timetable due to vacancies within the activity team.” from the report
Relatives not regularly involved in reviews
minorCare plans and risk assessments were reviewed monthly, but relatives were not always involved regularly in those reviews.
“However, relatives were not regularly involved with these reviews.” from the report
- 01What has changed about the quality, choice and quantity of main meals since the inspection?
- 02Has a head chef been recruited, and how do you check whether residents are satisfied with the food?
- 03What activities are now available each week, and how do you include people who need encouragement to take part?
- 04How are relatives involved in monthly care plan and risk assessment reviews?
- 05How do you record residents' and relatives' suggestions, and what action has been taken in response?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the 2019 rating, covering all five key questions and including infection prevention and control checks for COVID-19. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 June 2021 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, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement in all five areas; inspectors found kind staff and safe medicines, but gaps in risk assessments, care records, consent and oversight.
This was the home’s first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 10 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People generally said they felt safe and that staff were kind, respectful and knew them well. Staff numbers and recruitment checks were suitable. Medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and people were supported with food, healthcare and daily choices.
However, important information was missing or out of date. Risks were not always assessed, accidents were not consistently analysed, and care plans did not always explain the support people needed. People and relatives were not always involved in care planning. The home also did not consistently follow legal requirements about consent and best-interest decisions.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement, as were Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The CQC identified breaches of regulations and asked the provider for an action plan. It said it would return under its re-inspection programme, or sooner if concerning information was received.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff treated them well, respected their privacy and supported their choices. Staff also knew people’s preferences and communication needs.
“People told us staff were kind and caring and treated them well.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained, medicines were stored and administered safely, and records showed people received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines were administered, stored and managed safely. Audits identified no errors in the months before the inspection.” from the report
Suitable staffing and recruitment
Inspectors saw enough staff on duty, and recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“We saw sufficient numbers of staff during our inspection. Staff had time to spend with people and were not rushed.” from the report
Clean and personalised environment
The home was clean and homely. People could personalise their rooms and use communal and outside areas.
“The service was clean, tidy and homely and suited to the needs of people living there.” from the report
Access to healthcare
Staff monitored people’s health, made referrals when needed and supported hospital appointments and access to health professionals.
“Staff monitored people's health, including their weight, and referred them to relevant health professionals if any concerns were identified and when their health needs changed.” from the report
Risks were not consistently managed
seriousSome risk assessments were inaccurate or lacked guidance for staff. Inspectors said this created an increased risk of harm, including risks linked to moving and repositioning people.
“The failure to manage risks to people's health and welfare was a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
seriousCare plans did not always reflect the care being given or give staff enough detail. One person had been at the home for nearly a year without a full care plan.
“The above evidence shows that peoples records were not accurate or complete. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Consent was not always properly recorded
seriousCapacity assessments and best-interest decisions were missing in some cases. Inspectors found that bed rails were used for one person without recorded consent.
“The registered manager could not show they had acted in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.” from the report
End-of-life wishes were not recorded
seriousSome people’s preferences, choices and spiritual needs for end-of-life care had not been explored or written down.
“There was no end of life care plan or evidence that the service had explored the person's preferences, choices or spiritual needs in relation to their end of life care.” from the report
Food feedback was mixed
needs fixingSome people enjoyed the food, but others described it as inconsistent or boring. Food monitoring was not always completed and there was no evidence showing how the information was used.
“It's not dreadful, just boring. we've mentioned it but it's still up and down.” from the report
Activities and concerns were not always handled promptly
needs fixingInspectors found limited personalised stimulation during the visit. One person became anxious while waiting for an outing, and a person said concerns could take a long time to resolve.
“Sometimes things are acted on, sometimes not. But it often takes a long time.” from the report
- 01How have you updated risk assessments and staff guidance for people who cannot mobilise, need repositioning or are cared for in bed?
- 02How do you make sure care plans are complete, accurate and reviewed with the person and their relatives?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments, consent and best-interest decisions recorded, including decisions about bed rails?
- 04How do you record and discuss people’s end-of-life wishes, choices and spiritual needs?
- 05What has changed about food quality, personalised activities and the time taken to respond to concerns?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering the care provided, the premises and all five CQC key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.
Every inspection of Lavender Fields
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 July 2018.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.