CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lawnfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements and the management of infection outbreaks. The provider also had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements and measures to manage visiting and COVID-19 staffing pressures.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 28 April 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected the home.
Inspectors found people entering the home were checked, visitors were asked for negative lateral flow tests, and staff used protective equipment. The home had supplies of protective equipment, regular cleaning, testing arrangements and an up-to-date infection-control policy.
Visiting followed government guidance. The home used tablets to help people keep in touch with relatives during isolation and had a visiting pod available. Visiting had recently been restricted because of a norovirus outbreak, although some visits, such as end-of-life visits, could still take place.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of the home, so the report does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five questions.
Infection control
Inspectors found several measures to reduce the spread of infection, including entry checks, testing, PPE and staff training.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Cleaning
Frequently touched surfaces and communal areas were cleaned regularly. Cleaning records were checked by senior staff.
“Cleaning rotas were signed by staff carrying out tasks and checked by a senior member of staff.” from the report
Family contact
The home followed guidance on visiting and used technology to help people stay in touch when visits were limited by isolation.
“Visiting for people from family and friends was consistent with current government guidance.” from the report
Staffing pressures
The provider told inspectors that it had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
“The provider told us they had measures in place to mitigate the risks associated with COVID-19 related staff pressures.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits managed now if there is an infection outbreak, and what visits can still take place?
- 02How do you check that all permanent and agency staff follow the same infection-control procedures?
- 03How often are frequently touched surfaces and communal areas cleaned, and how are the records checked?
- 04What measures are currently in place if COVID-19 or other illness causes staffing pressures?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 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, October 2017
Lawnfield House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some checks needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 September 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and social care professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, staff files, medicines records, audits and maintenance records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable medicines arrangements, clean premises, good staff training and respectful care. People's healthcare, food, activities and personal preferences were supported.
The home remained Good, the same as at the previous comprehensive inspection on 6 November 2015. Inspectors identified some matters to watch, including an old DBS check for one care worker, recording of hot water temperatures before bathing, and further fire safety advice about smoking in a bedroom.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke highly of staff, and inspectors saw friendly interactions. Staff protected privacy by knocking before entering bedrooms and closing doors during personal care.
“Care workers treated people with respect and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
People and their representatives were involved in care planning. The home recorded personal, health, communication, cultural and spiritual needs.
“People and their representatives were involved in planning their care and support.” from the report
Activities and independence
The home offered regular activities and outings, and staff encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.
“The home had a varied and regular programme of activities to ensure that people received adequate social and therapeutic stimulation.” from the report
Good management checks
Managers and senior staff carried out checks on areas such as care records, medicines, safety and cleanliness. Inspectors noted that improvements were made when needed.
“The home had effective quality assurance systems for assessing, monitoring and improving the quality of the service.” from the report
One old DBS check
needs fixingOne care worker's DBS check was over six years old and had not been updated. The report said the home's yearly question about criminal convictions might not be enough to confirm fitness to work with vulnerable people.
“We noted that the DBS of one care worker was over six years old and no updates had been obtained from the DBS.” from the report
Bathing water records
needs fixingThe home had checked hot water temperatures monthly, but had not recorded the temperature before people were given a shower or bath. The manager later provided evidence that recording had started and said checks would also be weekly.
“The hot water temperatures had been checked monthly by the maintenance person.” from the report
Smoking and fire advice
needs fixingOne person smoked in their bedroom. A risk assessment and close supervision were in place, but the home was waiting for a visit from fire safety advisers after being advised to discuss the matter further.
“The registered manager stated that they had contacted their advisors and a visit by them was pending.” from the report
- 01What action was taken about the care worker whose DBS check was over six years old?
- 02How often are DBS checks now reviewed or updated for staff?
- 03How are hot water temperatures recorded before each person's shower or bath?
- 04What was the outcome of the fire safety advisers' visit about smoking in a bedroom?
- 05How are care plans and activities kept matched to each person's changing needs and preferences?
This inspection looked at all five key questions and the overall quality of the home; all five ratings remained Good from the previous comprehensive inspection in 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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 Lawnfield House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Brent
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. 74 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.