CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lenthall House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good and no longer in special measures; inspectors found major improvements in medicines, staffing and oversight after the previous Inadequate rating.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 22 June 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment and training records, and management systems.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were stored and managed safely, there were enough staff, people were protected from abuse and infection, and care records gave staff clear guidance about risks.
The last rating was Inadequate and the home had been in special measures. Inspectors found enough improvement for the home to no longer be in breach of Regulations 12 and 17, and to leave special measures.
Safer medicines
The home had made significant improvements to medicines management. Records were accurate, staff competency was checked and people received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines were stored safely and medicine records were completed accurately.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had time to provide individual support and people did not feel rushed.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs and this was confirmed by people we spoke with.” from the report
Stronger management
The manager had introduced action plans, audits and clearer oversight. Inspectors found that these changes had already improved staff practice.
“Systems and processes were robust and had already achieved improvements that were embedded into staff working practices.” from the report
Infection control
The home appeared clean and odour free. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, including protective equipment and testing, were being used safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Recent serious shortfalls
needs fixingThe previous inspection had found problems with staffing, medicines and management oversight. Although these were improved by this inspection, families should check that the changes have continued.
“The last rating for this service was inadequate (published 01 February 2022).” from the report
Limited inspection scope
minorThis visit was focused mainly on earlier legal warning notices and infection control under Safe. It did not give current ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive.
“This was a focussed inspection to check whether the provider had met the requirements of the Warning Notice” from the report
- 01How have you maintained the improvements in medicines management since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that there are enough staff on each shift to meet people's needs?
- 03What audits and checks are now used to identify and fix problems?
- 04How do you make sure the improvements made after the previous Inadequate rating continue when senior managers are absent?
- 05When will the home next receive ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; it checked earlier Warning Notices, so no new ratings were given for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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, February 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with safety, medicines, staffing and management.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 08 December 2021 and 09 December 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
They found people were at increased risk because risks were not always managed safely. Medicines were not always given, stored or recorded safely. There were not always enough staff, and care records were incomplete or inaccurate. Some hazardous items were accessible in bedrooms and communal areas.
Management checks were not effective. Care plans had not always been reviewed, audits and learning from incidents were lacking, and relatives were not always involved in care planning. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 14 June 2018, to Inadequate.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only. The other three ratings were not inspected and were carried over from earlier comprehensive inspections. The home was placed in special measures, with a Warning Notice requiring improvements by 31 March 2022.
Safe recruitment
The home carried out DBS checks and obtained references from previous employers before staff were recruited.
“Staff were recruited safely. For example, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and previous employer references were obtained.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
Staff had received safeguarding training and could explain how to recognise and report abuse or neglect.
“Staff demonstrated awareness of safeguarding and whistle-blowing procedures and were able to describe how to safeguard vulnerable people.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about several infection control arrangements, including PPE, testing, social distancing and visits.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Staff knew residents
Staff were able to describe people's preferences and how they liked their care to be delivered.
“Staff were knowledgeable about people who used the service and were able to describe people's likes and dislikes, as well as how they preferred their care to be delivered.” from the report
Unsafe risk management
seriousHazardous hand sanitiser and alcohol wipes were accessible to people, including in the dementia unit. A fire risk assessment recommendation had also not been completed.
“People had access to items that increased the risk of harm to them.” from the report
Medicines not always safe
seriousSome medicines were not given at clearly recorded times, creams and thickening powders were accessible, and a shortage of liquid medicine had not been explained in the records.
“Medicines were not always managed safely.” from the report
Staffing and care records
seriousStaffing levels did not meet the provider's dependency tool on 44 of 72 shifts reviewed. Records contained significant gaps and some entries showed one staff member supporting different people at the same time.
“There were not always enough staff deployed to ensure people were cared for safely.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits were absent for several months, trend analysis of falls and incidents had not been completed, and action plans lacked consistent priorities and timescales.
“The provider had not ensured they had effective systems and processes in place to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report
Relatives not always involved
needs fixingSeveral relatives said they were not involved in decisions about the home or their family member's care plan. Feedback about management support and communication was mixed.
“Several people's relatives told us they did not feel involved in decisions about Lenthall House or their relative's care.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure there are enough staff on every shift?
- 02How are medicines now timed, stored, administered and checked, including creams, thickening powders and liquid medicines?
- 03Have all care plans and risk assessments been reviewed and updated, and how often are they checked now?
- 04What action was taken to address the fire risk assessment recommendation about the kitchen compartmentation?
- 05How are relatives now involved in developing and reviewing their family member's care plan?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 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 Lenthall House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 September 2012.
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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 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.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.