CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Leighside
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm. Risks, safeguarding, staffing, medicines and infection control were generally managed safely, although some records and actions were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and quality monitoring were inconsistent. Inspectors found incomplete actions, mixed feedback from relatives and challenges linked to management and staff team changes.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Leighside is rated Good overall, but inspectors found management and quality checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 February 2023. Inspectors looked only at whether the home was safe and well-led, after concerns about management, quality and safety following new ownership.
The home was rated Good for safety. Inspectors found staff understood safeguarding, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient and medicines were generally managed safely. Infection prevention arrangements were also found to be suitable.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Quality checks had not always led to completed actions. Relatives gave mixed feedback, and there were concerns about communication, activities, teamwork and management changes.
The overall rating stayed Good because the ratings for areas not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection in 2018. The previous overall rating was also Good.
Managing risks
People were involved in decisions about their own safety. Risk assessments supported independence, including staying at home alone, household tasks and managing money.
“People were involved in managing risks to themselves and in taking decisions about how to keep safe.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to support people with activities and personal care. Staff had induction and ongoing training, including training tailored to people's individual needs.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to support people in their activities and with personal care.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff had safeguarding training and said they were confident about reporting concerns. Safeguarding information was available in an easy-read format for people living at the home.
“Staff confirmed they received safeguarding training and they were confident about reporting any safeguarding concerns.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including safe use of protective equipment and an up-to-date policy.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Quality checks were not followed through
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems did not always lead to completed actions. This included an outstanding action about personal emergency evacuation plans.
“While there were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service, these had not always been effective and actions not completed.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingRelatives gave mixed feedback. Some said communication had reduced and that they often had to ask for updates.
“For one relative the updates they used to get have gone by the wayside and they now have to ask” from the report
Incomplete medicines checks
needs fixingMedicines were managed safely overall, but not all staff competency checks had been recorded. The manager said the medicines recording system was being reviewed.
“However, a provider audit had identified that not all staff competency checks had been recorded.” from the report
Incident records
needs fixingAccident and incident records were not always completed promptly. This limited the home's ability to identify patterns and decide what action was needed.
“A provider audit had identified accident and incident records were not always completed in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01Have all people living at the home now got a completed personal emergency evacuation plan?
- 02Have all staff had their medicines competency checks recorded, and how is this checked now?
- 03How quickly are accident and incident records completed and reviewed for patterns or required action?
- 04How will you keep relatives updated about their family member's care and wellbeing?
- 05What changes have been made to improve activities, healthy eating and teamwork since this inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 2023 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, March 2022
Leighside was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during a targeted visit.
The inspection took place on 23 February 2022 and was announced 24 hours in advance. It was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures. They found the home was clean and tidy, with organised cleaning schedules and visual guidance to help people understand hygiene.
The provider had plans for COVID-19 risks, staffing pressures and visiting arrangements. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean and organised home
The home was clean and tidy. Cleaning schedules told staff how often to clean and which areas to cover, including high-touch points.
“The home was clean and tidy. Cleaning was well organised with schedules in place for day and night staff to follow.” from the report
Support with hygiene
People were helped to understand hygiene and infection control. Posters and pictures were used for people who communicated in this way.
“People were supported to understand how to maintain good hygiene and infection prevention and control (IPC).” from the report
COVID-19 planning
The provider had risk assessments and contingency plans for COVID-19. Families were kept informed about changes to guidance and visiting arrangements.
“Robust risk assessment and contingency planning in relation to Covid 19 had been completed in line with Government guidance” from the report
Visitor safety checks
Visitors had to follow checks before entering, including a temperature check, a negative lateral flow test, hand gel and a mask.
“This included a temperature check, proof of a current negative lateral flow test, the use of hand gel and wearing of a mask.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place to manage staffing pressures, and have these affected people's care?
- 02How are people supported to understand hygiene and infection control if they use pictures or other visual communication?
- 03What visiting checks and arrangements are currently in place?
- 04How are COVID-19 risks and possible outbreaks managed now?
- 05Can you show us the cleaning schedules and explain how high-touch areas are checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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.
Every inspection of Leighside
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.