CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lawreth
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs and protected them from avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, infection control and incidents were managed well overall, although mould was found on some ceilings.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a new rating for it.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a new rating for it.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a new rating for it.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective governance, a positive culture and good partnership working. Relatives, staff and professionals were involved in reviewing and improving the service.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support and effective leadership, with mould on some ceilings being addressed.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. Inspectors visited on 15 and 23 November 2022 and continued checks and telephone calls until 5 December. They observed care, spoke with the manager and support workers, contacted relatives and professionals, and checked records such as risk assessments, recruitment files and safety checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines support, good safeguarding arrangements and effective checks on risks. People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and use the local community.
Some ceilings had mould, including in one bedroom, although the provider was taking action. There were also vacant roles and staff described a previous dip in morale caused by staffing pressures. The last inspection rating was Good in 2017, and the overall rating remained Good.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's individual needs, wishes and goals. This helped them provide consistent and safe support.
“There were enough skilled and experienced staff who knew people well to safely meet people's needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to have as much choice and control as possible. Staff used the least restrictive approach and supported community activities.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Caring culture
Feedback described a caring atmosphere, with staff valuing people's individuality and rights.
“The registered manager worked hard to instil a culture of care in which staff truly valued and promoted people's individuality, protected their rights and enabled them to develop and flourish.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health and social care organisations and advocacy services to support people's wellbeing and give them a voice.
“The service worked well in partnership with advocacy organisations/ other health and social care organisations, which helped to give people using the service a voice/ improve their wellbeing.” from the report
Mould on ceilings
needs fixingInspectors found mould on some ceilings, including in one bedroom. The provider was taking steps to address the ongoing issue.
“On the first day of inspection there was mould on some ceilings, including in one bedroom.” from the report
Vacant roles and staff morale
minorThere were vacant roles, including senior posts, and staff reported a dip in morale linked to staffing pressures. Inspectors nevertheless found enough staff to meet people's needs.
“The service had vacant roles, including for senior staff, and was recruiting to fill these.” from the report
- 01Has the mould on the ceilings, including in the bedroom, now been fully removed?
- 02Which staff and senior roles are still vacant, and how are staffing levels being maintained?
- 03How will you make sure newer staff have the same knowledge of people's needs as longer-serving staff?
- 04How are people's medicines reviewed, particularly when they need medicine 'as and when needed'?
- 05How are relatives' views included in care reviews and decisions about changes to the service?
This inspection assessed Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 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, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end-of-life wishes not yet discussed.
The inspection was announced and took place on 13 and 19 October 2017. One inspector reviewed the home’s records, observed care, spoke with family members, the manager and staff, and checked training, medicines and quality checks.
The home supported two people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training, person-centred care plans and good support with health, food, communication and activities.
People were treated with dignity and encouraged to be independent. Families were positive about the care, and the home had a complaints process and regular checks on its quality.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. The report says the home remained Good since the previous inspection in September 2015.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment checks included references, identity checks and Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people’s choices, communication methods and support needs in detail. Staff were trained to follow guidance for each person.
“We found the care records were person centred, which means the person was at the centre of any care or support plans” from the report
Dignity and independence
Staff treated people respectfully and encouraged them to do tasks for themselves where possible, including laundry, cleaning and helping in the kitchen.
“This demonstrated that staff supported people to be independent and people were encouraged to care for themselves where possible.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities and go out. The report describes holidays, short breaks, train journeys and local activities.
“We found the provider protected people from social isolation.” from the report
Good management checks
The provider used regular visits, surveys and daily, weekly and monthly checks to monitor the home’s quality and safety.
“This demonstrated that the provider gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
minorThe home had not discussed end-of-life care with the people living there because staff felt the subject might distress them. The manager said this would be discussed with families at the appropriate time.
“However, it would be discussed and families would be involved at the appropriate time.” from the report
- 01How are each person’s communication needs recorded and kept up to date?
- 02How do you check that medicines are stored and given safely?
- 03What activities, holidays and community outings are currently available?
- 04How do you support people to remain independent with everyday tasks?
- 05How would you discuss end-of-life wishes with the person and their family?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the previous inspection in September 2015 also rated the home Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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 Lawreth
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“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.