CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lennox House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Rated Requires Improvement and no longer in special measures; care was kind and improvements were clear, but fire work and new systems were not yet fully in place.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 26 November 2020. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures. Inspectors found better risk assessments, safeguarding, medicines management, care planning, staff support and leadership. Caring was rated Good.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Fire safety work was still under way, only the ground and first floors were in use, and some new systems needed more time to become fully established. The local authority had also placed an embargo on new admissions.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect. People were involved in choices about their meals, activities and care.
“Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Improved risk management
The home had introduced better assessments and reviews for risks such as falls, diabetes, skin care and equipment use.
“Potential risks to people's health, well-being and safety had been identified, assessed and reviewed regularly.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found medicines were stored, ordered, given and disposed of safely. Regular reviews and audits were in place.
“We observed they were stored securely, ordered, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Better support for staff
Staff had access to induction, training, supervision and mentoring. Inspectors found they had the skills and experience needed for their roles.
“The home demonstrated staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to carry out their roles.” from the report
Fire safety work unfinished
seriousFire safety improvements were still under way. The upper floors could not be used until the work was completed and found safe.
“There were ongoing fire safety work to ensure that the unoccupied areas of the building were safe before more floors could be opened up for people.” from the report
Improvements not fully embedded
needs fixingThe home had made significant progress, but inspectors said some systems and processes were still being established. This affected the ratings for safety, effectiveness, responsiveness and leadership.
“Whilst improvements had been made, there were still some work in progress to embed the changes made.” from the report
Limited use of the building
needs fixingOnly the ground and first floors were in use during the inspection. Admissions had stopped temporarily because of an embargo imposed by the local authority.
“At the time of the inspection only the ground and first floors were in use due to major ongoing fire safety remedial work.” from the report
- 01What fire safety work is still outstanding, and when will it be completed and independently checked?
- 02When do you expect the other floors to reopen, and how will this affect the people currently living here?
- 03How are you checking that the new risk assessments, care plans and governance systems continue to work in practice?
- 04What was the reason for the local authority embargo on new admissions, and has it now been lifted?
- 05How will you keep families informed about progress and any further changes to the service?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided; fire safety remedial work and the embedding of improvements were still ongoing. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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, August 2020
Overall rating remained Inadequate; a targeted inspection found improvements in safe care, but the home was not re-rated.
This was a targeted inspection on 8 July 2020. Inspectors looked at specific concerns about safe care and treatment, rather than the whole service. They spoke with relatives and staff, observed care, and checked medicines, care records and quality records.
Inspectors found improvements in safeguarding, diabetes care, pressure ulcer care, medicines management, infection control and learning from accidents. Relatives gave good feedback and said people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.
The improvements were recent. Inspectors said it was too early to know whether they were fully embedded and would continue after support from the local authority and the wider organisation reduced. The overall rating remained Inadequate because this targeted inspection did not assess the whole service.
Safeguarding referrals
Recent safeguarding concerns were referred to the local authority. Inspectors found that action was taken to assess risks and improve people's safety.
“Notably, we found evidence of good partnership working in three recent safeguarding concerns.” from the report
Diabetes care
People with diabetes had individual care plans. People at high risk of low blood sugar were identified and received extra monitoring and support.
“People with diabetes received diabetes care that matched with their needs.” from the report
Medicines
The medicines records checked showed medicines were being given as prescribed. Errors were recorded and investigated, with monthly audits and action plans.
“The medicines administration records we reviewed showed people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Learning from accidents
After falls and other incidents, the home reviewed risk assessments and care plans. It also took steps such as seeking occupational therapy advice and providing walking aids.
“The provider ensured that lessons were learnt from accidents and incidents.” from the report
Safeguarding systems had previously failed
seriousThe provider said safeguarding systems had not always worked effectively, so some alerts were not raised quickly enough. Inspectors found recent improvement but said the new arrangements were not yet proven over time.
“The provider acknowledged the systems had not been operated effectively, which meant safeguarding alerts had not always been raised in a timely manner.” from the report
Improvements not yet established
needs fixingInspectors could not yet be sure that the improvements would continue without support from the local authority and the wider organisation.
“However, it was too early for the provider to be able to demonstrate that these processes were fully embedded and that these improvements could be sustained over time.” from the report
- 01What evidence can you show that safeguarding concerns are now reported promptly to the local authority?
- 02How are you checking that the recent improvements will continue when support from the local authority and the wider organisation reduces?
- 03How will you measure whether diabetes care is improving people's health and wellbeing, including rates of low blood sugar and hospital admissions?
- 04How are pressure ulcer risks and repositioning plans checked for each person?
- 05What did your medicines audits identify, and have all the related action plans now been completed?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about Safe care and treatment; it did not assess the whole service or change the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 August 2020 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 Lennox House
8 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Goodstayed GoodEffective: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Islington
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.”
“The interaction she gives my mother is incredible, singing, dancing, taking her to groups, on plenty of walks which mum always loves.”
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.