CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Life Care Corporation Limited
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People were protected from abuse and medicines were being managed safely. However, some call bells were not suitable, waste was not adequately secured, and infection prevention practices still needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans, the environment and support with food and fluids had improved. Eight staff members had overdue practical moving and handling training, and valid consent had not always been recorded for photographs shared on social media.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported independence and made extra efforts to keep people connected with relatives during visiting restrictions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records contained more personalised information about people's routines, preferences and emotional wellbeing. Activities were adapted during lockdown and were described as individualised.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Leadership and quality checks had improved, but the continuous improvement plan was not always updated when audits found new actions. The statement of purpose also initially lacked required information.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Life Care Corporation Limited was rated Requires Improvement, with kinder and more personalised care, but continuing concerns about safety, staff training and management checks; it is no longer in special measures.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 3 March 2021. Two inspectors spoke with people and staff, observed care, checked seven care records and medicines records, and reviewed training and management documents. They also sought information from other professionals and the provider after the visit.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Inadequate. Medicines, risk assessments, care planning, the building and activities had improved. People were protected from abuse, treated with kindness and supported to keep in touch with relatives during pandemic restrictions.
Some problems remained. Infection control practices needed further improvement. Eight staff members had overdue practical moving and handling training. Waste was not securely stored, some call bells were not suitable, and information for people living with dementia was not always presented clearly.
The overall rating and the Safe, Effective and Well-led ratings were Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home was no longer in breach of regulations or in special measures, but CQC said it would continue monitoring the service.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people calmly and gently, respecting privacy and encouraging independence. Families had also sent complimentary feedback during visiting restrictions.
“People's privacy and dignity was respected. Staff encouraged people to be independent as possible.” from the report
Personalised care records
Care plans and daily notes gave better information about people's preferences, routines, social histories and emotional wellbeing.
“Care documentation had improved. There was more reliable, accurate information recorded about people's personal care.” from the report
Activities and family contact
The home provided individual activities and created a visiting area during the pandemic. Staff also used calls, emails and video chats to help people stay connected.
“The service had a very good social activities programme to keep people stimulated during the lockdowns and pandemic.” from the report
Improved medicines management
Inspectors found better systems for covert medicines, thickening powder, as-needed medicines and checking medicine stock.
“Changes were made to ensure people received their medicines safely.” from the report
Moving and handling training
needs fixingEight staff members had overdue practical training for moving and repositioning people. The managers had recognised this but had not found a way to provide the retraining.
“Eight staff members' practical moving and handling training was overdue.” from the report
Safety checks did not track every action
needs fixingThe home completed many audits, but actions identified in later audits were not always added to the main improvement plan. This created a risk that some actions would be missed.
“When new actions arising from audits were identified, they were not always added to the continuous improvement plan.” from the report
Some environmental safety issues
needs fixingInspectors found unsuitable call bell fittings in some communal bathrooms and unsecured clinical and general waste. A steep ramp to the visiting area was also unsuitable for wheelchair users.
“Clinical and general waste located at the front of the building were still not adequately secured.” from the report
Consent for photographs
needs fixingThe home had shared photographs of people on a public social media account without records of written consent. The manager said the account was deleted after the inspection.
“The registered manager confirmed they did not have records of people consenting to appear on a social media site.” from the report
Information was not always accessible
minorSome signs and boards did not use pictures or symbols that could help people living with dementia understand routines and information.
“There was a lack of alternatives when information needed to be presented to people in a visual format.” from the report
- 01Has all overdue practical moving and handling training now been completed, and how is refresher training kept up to date?
- 02How are safety actions from each audit recorded, assigned and checked until they are completed?
- 03How will you make menus, activity information and other notices understandable for people living with dementia?
- 04What is the current process for obtaining and recording consent before photographs are used or shared?
- 05What has been done to secure the waste and correct the call bell and visiting ramp concerns?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five CQC key questions, with infection prevention and control also checked because of the pandemic. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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, May 2020
Rated Inadequate and still in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, medicines, care planning and management failures.
This was an unannounced, planned follow-up inspection on 23 and 24 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and meals, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management audits.
The home had not made enough improvement since the previous inspection. Inspectors found unsafe medicines practices, missing or inaccurate risk information, infection control problems and an environment that was not suitable for many people living with dementia. People were also not always supported to make choices about their care, food, activities or bedtime.
There were some positive findings. Staff were described as polite and respectful. Staffing levels and recruitment checks were considered adequate, and staff training was comprehensive. However, these strengths did not outweigh the serious and continuing problems.
The overall rating remained Inadequate. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Inadequate. Caring and Responsive were rated Requires Improvement. The home remained in special measures, meaning CQC would keep it under review and normally re-inspect within six months.
Respectful interactions
Inspectors saw staff communicating compassionately and respectfully. People said staff were polite and maintained their privacy when providing care.
“We found that staff approached and communicated with people compassionately and respectfully.” from the report
Staff training
Training records showed mandatory training was complete, with competency checks and induction arrangements in place. Staff also reported regular supervision.
“An effective system to ensure staff received relevant training had been developed by the provider.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff were deployed to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed to help ensure staff were suitable for the work.
“Sufficient staff were deployed at the service to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Safeguarding concerns had been reported to CQC and relevant agencies.
“Staff had a comprehensive understanding of how to report and manage concerns.” from the report
Unsafe medicines
seriousFive people were given medicines covertly without evidence of the required capacity assessments, best-interest decisions or safe administration guidance. More than 50 tablets were unaccounted for, and some medicines had not been reviewed or stopped when required.
“This meant that at least five people may have incorrectly and unsafely been administered covert medicines.” from the report
Risks were not controlled
seriousCall bells had been removed or cut, with no alternative system. Inspectors also found unsafe slopes, missing handrails, hazards from doors and furniture, and gaps in repositioning records of up to 14 hours.
“This meant the provider did not ensure a system to respond to people and risks related to their care and health was in place.” from the report
Infection control
seriousClinical and general waste was not securely stored. Inspectors also found stained equipment, an unclean and malodorous area, a soiled mattress stored with clean mattresses and food that was not kept in pest-control containers.
“The provider failed to protect people from the risk of infection.” from the report
Poor care records and nutrition monitoring
seriousCare plans contained conflicting information and did not always explain people's needs. Food and fluid records showed very low fluid amounts that had not been acted on, creating risks to hydration and skin health.
“Records indicated significant shortfalls, which went undetected therefore unactioned by staff.” from the report
Dementia-unfriendly environment
needs fixingBedroom doors lacked clear identifiers, signs were inconsistent and some rooms were not personalised. Heavy doors, missing handrails and an inaccessible light switch could restrict independence or increase risks.
“The premises remained unsuitable for people living with dementia.” from the report
Choices and involvement
needs fixingPeople were not consistently involved in care planning or decisions made on their behalf. Activities were not personalised, and mealtimes offered limited choice of seating, food and presentation.
“Not enough improvement had been made at this inspection, therefore the provider remained in breach of regulation 9.” from the report
- 01What has been done to restore call bells or provide a safe alternative for people needing help?
- 02How are covert medicines now authorised, recorded and checked, and how are medicine stock discrepancies prevented?
- 03How do you now monitor people's food, fluid intake, weight and repositioning, and what happens when records show a shortfall?
- 04What changes have been made to bedroom doors, signs, handrails and other parts of the building to make it safer for people living with dementia?
- 05How are people now involved in their care plans, best-interest decisions, activities and choices about meals and bedtime?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, carried out because the home was previously rated Inadequate and placed in special measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 May 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Life Care Corporation Limited
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- April 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Life Care Corporation Limited →
- May 2020Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Life Care Corporation Limited →
- October 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 September 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 Reading
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 £1,010 to £1,270 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 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.”
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
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.