CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lester Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff knew how to manage risks, safeguarding concerns and mental distress. Medicines, staffing and emergency arrangements were found to be managed safely, although two infection-control improvements were needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff had confidence in the managers. Audits, meetings, incident reviews and feedback were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Lester Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but some infection-control improvements were needed.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 8 November 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because the inspection followed concerns about safeguarding, leadership and governance. They spoke with people and staff and reviewed care records, audits, policies and infection-control documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff were caring and well trained, and there were enough staff to support people. Managers reported safeguarding concerns properly, reviewed incidents and used audits and feedback to improve the service.
Inspectors found two infection-control issues. Cracked paint under a ground-floor bathroom sink made the area harder to clean. Visitors had checks on arrival but were not screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection. The home said it would address these points.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in December 2018. The other three question areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and could speak up about concerns. Staff understood safeguarding and how to support people calmly during mental distress.
“People felt safe at the service and able to speak out.” from the report
Caring staff
Inspectors found positive relationships between staff and people. Staff supported people with kindness and encouraged greater independence.
“They were caring and kind and had positive relationships with the people using the service.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Staffing levels met people's needs, and staff had the training and background checks needed for their roles.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Strong leadership
The service had experienced managers who were available to people and staff. Audits and incident reviews were used to identify and make improvements.
“The service was well-led by an experienced registered manager and deputy.” from the report
Bathroom needed repair
minorCracked paint beneath a ground-floor bathroom sink made the area difficult to clean. The deputy manager said this would be addressed.
“A ground floor bathroom needed attention due to cracked paint beneath the sink which made the area difficult to clean.” from the report
Visitor symptom checks
needs fixingVisitors had lateral flow tests and temperature checks, but they were not screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection before entering.
“However, they were not screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection before entering the premises.” from the report
- 01Has the cracked paint beneath the ground-floor bathroom sink been repaired, and how is the area now kept easy to clean?
- 02Do visitors now complete symptom screening before entering the home?
- 03What changes were made after the difficult period involving safeguarding and challenges in meeting some people's needs?
- 04How will you support my relative to become more independent and take part in activities in the local community?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when were those areas last fully inspected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 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, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no serious risks or concerns identified.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 19 November 2018. One inspector reviewed the home’s records, including medicines, staffing, accidents and quality checks, and looked at two people’s care records. They also spoke with three people and members of staff and management.
The home supported up to 10 adults with mental health needs, with nine people living there at the time. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, the home was clean, and staffing was suitable. Staff were trained and worked with health professionals to meet people’s needs.
People were treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Care was personalised and focused on recovery and independence. The home had a registered manager, listened to people and staff, and carried out checks to find and address improvements. All five areas were rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection in November 2015.
People felt safe
People said staff made them feel safe. The home used risk assessments, safeguarding procedures and flexible staffing to reduce risks.
“This is the safest place I have ever been.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Only trained staff whose skills had been checked gave medicines. Storage arrangements had also been improved since the previous inspection.
“Only trained staff whose competency had been checked were authorised to give out medicines.” from the report
Skilled staff
Inspectors found staff were well trained and understood people’s specific needs, including epilepsy and autism.
“The staff were well-trained, skilled and knowledgeable.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built trusting relationships and involved people in decisions about their care and support. People’s privacy and dignity were respected.
“Staff built relationships of trust with people.” from the report
Personalised recovery support
The home used personalised reviews and the recovery star model to help people move towards greater independence.
“The home used the 'recovery star model' to support people to progress towards independence.” from the report
People’s views were acted on
People and staff could share their views in meetings and other ways. Inspectors found that suggestions led to changes, including requested trips.
“People were listened to and action taken in response to their suggestions.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and support my relative’s specific mental health needs before they move in?
- 02How would you help my relative become more independent, and how would progress be reviewed?
- 03What training and competency checks do staff have for my relative’s particular needs and medicines?
- 04What are the home’s rules about alcohol and illegal drugs, and how would these affect my relative?
- 05How would my relative communicate concerns or complaints, and what action would you take?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 December 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 Lester Court
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 January 2015.
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.