CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lee Gordon House
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found some good COVID-19 practices but concerns about visitors, masks and cleanliness.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 December 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control in response to coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors were assured about shielding, social distancing, safe admissions, testing, outbreak management and the infection control policy. They also found that people could keep in touch with important people through video and telephone calls.
However, inspectors were not assured that visiting arrangements were followed safely. They also saw one staff member without a mask, clutter that affected cleaning, poor laundry storage, personal items that could be mixed up and an overflowing bin containing used continence pads and PPE.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a new overall quality rating or a full rating across all five areas of care.
Keeping in touch
People were supported to stay in contact with important people in different ways, including video and telephone calls.
“People were supported to maintain contact with people who were important to them in a variety of ways including video and telephone calls.” from the report
Managing infection risks for staff travel
The risks of staff using public transport were considered and reduced. One staff member used taxis instead.
“The risks of staff using public transport to travel to and from work had been explored and reduced.” from the report
Supporting staff
Staff told inspectors they felt valued. They received thank you cards and shopping vouchers during the pandemic.
“Staff felt valued. They had received thank you cards and shopping vouchers from the registered manager and the senior leadership team during the pandemic.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Inspectors were assured that the home was accessing testing and had arrangements to prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Visitor safety arrangements
needs fixingThe visiting protocol was not followed correctly when inspectors arrived. Signs and instructions did not clearly tell people what to do to stay safe.
“The provider's visiting protocol was not correctly followed on our arrival at the home to ensure our visit could take place safely.” from the report
Mask use
needs fixingInspectors saw one staff member not wearing a face mask in line with current guidance.
“We observed one staff member was not wearing a face mask in line with current guidance during our visit.” from the report
Cleaning and storage
needs fixingClutter made effective cleaning difficult. Personal items could be mixed up, and clean laundry was stored in an open basket on the floor.
“Some areas of the home were cluttered so effective cleaning could not take place.” from the report
Waste and laundry hygiene
seriousLaundry guidance was not followed and an overflowing communal toilet bin contained used continence pads and used PPE, creating an infection control risk.
“A bin in a communal toilet containing used continence pads and used PPE was overflowing which presented an infection control risk.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure the visiting protocol is followed every time?
- 02How do you check that all staff wear masks correctly and follow current infection control guidance?
- 03How are communal areas kept clear so they can be cleaned properly?
- 04How are personal toiletries and other items kept separate so they are not mixed up or shared?
- 05How are used PPE, continence pads and clean laundry stored and disposed of safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 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, June 2018
Lee Gordon House was rated Good overall, but Safe required improvement because staffing levels did not always manage known risks or support people to go out.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 3 May 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and quality records. People had limited verbal communication, so observations were especially important.
Inspectors found calm, kind and personalised care. Staff understood people's needs, supported their independence and dignity, managed medicines safely, and worked with health professionals. Relatives spoke positively about the care and management.
The main shortfall was staffing. At times, there was no staff presence in an area where one person needed close observation because they might eat harmful non-food items. Staffing also limited opportunities to go out. The overall Good rating means the home met expectations in most areas, but Safe was not consistently good.
Kind and respectful care
People were comfortable with staff, who were patient and respectful. Care was provided in a way that protected privacy and dignity.
“Staff were attentive and showed people patience and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed information about people's needs, choices, histories and routines. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“Care plans were personalised and provided detailed information about people's needs, life style choices and histories, preferences and daily routines.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff received regular training and checks of their practice.
“Records confirmed staff received medicine training, which was refreshed regularly and their practice observed to make sure they continued to be competent to administer people's medicine safely.” from the report
Good communication with families
Relatives were welcomed to visit and were involved in care reviews. They said they could raise concerns with management.
“Relatives were involved in reviewing their family member's care.” from the report
Staffing and supervision
seriousStaffing levels did not always allow people to go out when they wanted. On two occasions, staff were elsewhere while a person with a known risk was in the lounge without the planned observation.
“We were concerned staffing levels limited opportunities for people to engage in activities outside the home and meant staff did not consistently manage known risks.” from the report
- 01How many staff are available during the day, including when someone needs to leave the home with a person for an appointment?
- 02How will you make sure the person at risk of eating non-food items is observed whenever the care plan says this is needed?
- 03What changes have been made to staffing since the inspection, and has the review of people's needs by commissioners been completed?
- 04How often can each person currently go out for walks, appointments and activities?
- 05What is the current plan for replacing the activity coordinator role while staffing levels are being increased?
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection covering all five key questions, and it was the first inspection under the home's current registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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 Lee Gordon House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 2017.
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 Coventry
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.