CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lennon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough suitably skilled staff. Inspectors recommended following best practice for medicines after finding an administration error and incomplete records for topical creams.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff understood people's choices and support needs. People were supported with activities, healthy food, healthcare appointments and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People received kind and compassionate care. Staff respected privacy and dignity and supported people to express their views and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People were supported to take part in activities, maintain relationships and pursue their interests.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a positive and open culture, but some audits had not been completed and some problems had not been identified by the provider's monitoring systems. Inspectors recommended that these systems be strengthened and embedded in practice.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home needs to improve its management and checking systems.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 18, 23 and 25 August 2022. They spoke with staff, a relative and professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home supported two people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly, involved in their care and supported to enjoy meaningful activities, develop skills and access health care.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. It was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led because some audits and checks were not completed, and the quality monitoring systems had not found every issue.
This was the first inspection since the service registered. The inspectors made recommendations about medicines management and strengthening the home's quality monitoring systems.
Meaningful lives
People were supported to pursue their interests, goals and aspirations. Inspectors saw people taking part in activities they chose and developing everyday skills at their own pace.
“People were supported by consistent staff who knew them well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's individual needs and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“People received kind and compassionate care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Bedrooms and communal areas were personalised to the people living there.
“Care plans were person centred. They described people's routines, what was important to them and their likes and dislikes.” from the report
Staffing and healthcare
People were supported by regular staff who knew them well. Staff had relevant training, and people were helped to attend healthcare appointments and follow professional advice.
“There were enough suitably skilled and competent staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousOne person did not receive the full dose of a prescribed medicine for several days, and the medicines record was not completed accurately. Inspectors said this caused no harm, and immediate action was taken, but they recommended improvements to medicines management.
“There had been an administration error resulting in the person not receiving the full dose of their medicine over a number of days.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingSome audits and equipment or premises checks were not completed consistently. Some issues found during the inspection had not been identified by the provider's quality monitoring.
“Some audits had not been completed and some of the issues we identified during this inspection had not been picked up by the providers quality monitoring processes.” from the report
Complaint records
minorSome informal concerns had been raised, but the home had not recorded what action was taken or whether the concerns were resolved. The manager agreed to include all concerns in complaints monitoring.
“There had been some informal issues raised, however there was no record to show the action taken or if there had been a resolution.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to prevent another medicines administration error?
- 02How do you now record and check the application of topical creams?
- 03Which audits and equipment checks were missed, and how are you making sure they are completed consistently?
- 04How do you record informal concerns and confirm that they have been resolved?
- 05What progress has been made in strengthening and embedding the quality monitoring systems?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered care home and covered all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 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 Lennon House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 February 2021.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.