CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lethbridge Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and staffing levels were suitable. Staff knew how to protect people from harm and support them safely at home and in the community.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans included people's needs, choices and goals. Staff had suitable training and supervision, and people were supported with food, healthcare, consent and developing independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw patient, kind and respectful support. People were offered choices, involved in decisions and supported to maintain family relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and records were updated when people's needs changed. People were supported with communication, hobbies, community activities and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff promoted a person-centred culture. Quality checks, staff meetings, family questionnaires and work with other agencies were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Lethbridge Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was a planned inspection on 20 August 2019. One inspector spoke with the manager and three support workers, observed people and staff, and reviewed two care files, medicines processes and other records.
The home supported five people and could support up to six. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staffing was suitable and staff understood people's risks and needs.
People were supported to make choices, become more independent and take part in activities in the community. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and care plans were detailed and kept up to date.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous Good rating, published on 23 February 2017.
Support without restrictive practices
The home used positive behaviour support and did not use restraint, seclusion or segregation during the period covered by the review.
“The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm relationships and staff giving people time, reassurance and support when they were anxious or upset.
“It was clear from observations that staff had developed strong relationships with people.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team used audits, checks, meetings and feedback from families to monitor the quality and safety of the home.
“Quality assurance systems were in place and used effectively to monitor key aspects of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative to develop independence in cooking, shopping, laundry and personal care?
- 02How do you record and review changes in a person's risks, needs and preferences?
- 03How would you support my relative to take part in activities and use local community facilities?
- 04How are people and their families involved in planning and changing care?
- 05What positive behaviour support would be used if my relative became anxious or distressed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC key questions; the inspector reviewed two care files and observed the home, staff and people's interactions. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 2019 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the previous medicines breach addressed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 January 2017. Inspectors reviewed care records, staff files and quality checks. They spoke with people living at the home, staff and a social care professional.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors rated it Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found medicines were managed safely, staff were trained and recruited safely, and there were enough staff to support people's activities and community access.
Inspectors saw kind and respectful staff. Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, communication needs and triggers in detail. People were involved in decisions, could choose activities and were supported to access healthcare.
At the previous inspection in November 2014, the safe area required improvement because of medicines records. The provider had taken appropriate action, and the home was no longer in breach of that regulation.
Medicines were improved
The previous inspection found problems with medicines records. This inspection found medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely, with additional checks in place.
“Medication was stored in separate locked room. The temperature of this room was recorded every day.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines, communication needs and triggers. Staff used this information to provide familiar support and reduce distress.
“Care plans contained a high level of person centred information.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff treating people with kindness and respect. Staff protected privacy and dignity and supported people to make choices.
“We observed throughout the duration of our inspection that staff would knock on people's bedroom doors and ask permission to enter.” from the report
Good staff support and training
Staff had training in areas including safeguarding, medicines, autism and first aid. New staff received an induction, mentoring and regular supervision.
“Staff were supported through regular training, supervision and appraisal.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The home audited care files, medicines, finances, building safety and other records. Feedback from people was collected and used to help improve the service.
“There were quality assurance systems in place and people were regularly asked for feedback to help improve the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are medicines currently checked, including medicines records, fridge temperatures and medicines given when needed?
- 02How often are each person's care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and how are people involved in those reviews?
- 03How do staffing levels change when people have different activities or community plans?
- 04How are new staff trained and supported before they work independently with people?
- 05How are complaints recorded, investigated and used to make changes?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five rating areas; it also checked that the previous medicines breach had been addressed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 2017 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 Lethbridge Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 February 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Sefton
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 £1,270 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.