CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lightbowne Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were generally administered safely, and the home was clean with effective infection control. Inspectors noted missing records for thickeners, some risk assessments needing more detail, and staff being busy on the ground floor.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support. People’s health, nutrition and hydration needs were met, and the home worked with health professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed warm and respectful interactions. People were offered choices, involved in their care and supported to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans gave staff guidance about people’s needs and had improved since the previous inspection. Activities, trips out and communication support were available, although activities were not always easy to provide alongside people’s care needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a clear management structure and regular auditing. Relatives said communication was good and concerns were dealt with, while the deputy manager was awaiting a decision on their registration application.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Lightbowne Hall was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some records and staffing arrangements needing attention.
Inspectors visited without notice on 21 and 22 March 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, accident reports and management checks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and that staff were kind, respectful and knew their needs. The home was clean, infection control was well managed, and people received support with health, food and drink.
There were some smaller problems. Staff had not recorded when thickeners were added to drinks, some risk assessments needed more detail, and staff were busy on the ground floor. These issues were discussed during the inspection, and some changes were made or arranged.
This was the first inspection since the current registration. The responsive rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection under the former provider. The other ratings remained Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff explaining what they were doing and giving people choices.
“People and relatives said the staff were kind, caring and respectful.” from the report
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to report concerns and incidents were reviewed for learning.
“People and relatives thought they were safe living at Lightbowne Hall.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
The home worked with GPs, nurses and other professionals. Staff supported people with food and drinks, including modified diets and extra monitoring where needed.
“People were supported to maintain their health and well-being.” from the report
Good management checks
The home used audits and assigned actions to named staff with timescales. The provider also carried out its own audits.
“A quality assurance system was in place, with a schedule of audits for care plans, medicines, and health and safety.” from the report
Thickener records
needs fixingStaff did not record when thickener had been added to drinks, which is relevant to people at risk of choking. Recording was introduced during the inspection.
“Thickeners used to reduce the risk of choking were not recorded when used.” from the report
Some risk assessments lacked detail
needs fixingA few assessments did not fully explain the risks of people becoming agitated or how staff should support them. Staff knew people and the appropriate techniques, but the written guidance needed improvement.
“More details were needed in a few risk assessments to identify the risks of people becoming agitated and how to support them at these times.” from the report
Busy ground floor
needs fixingSome staff said they were very busy on the ground floor because many people needed two staff for personal care and moving. Staff were moved from other floors to help at mealtimes, and night staffing was due to increase.
“Some members of staff said they were very busy on the ground floor and needed an extra member of staff.” from the report
Overdue water risk assessment
minorThe legionella risk assessment was more than two years old. A new assessment was arranged shortly after the inspection.
“The legionella risk assessment was over 2 years old.” from the report
- 01How are you recording every use of thickener in drinks now, and who checks these records?
- 02What extra detail has been added to risk assessments for people who may become agitated?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough staff on the ground floor during personal care and mealtimes?
- 04Has the planned increase to six night staff been completed?
- 05What is the current position on the application for a registered manager?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, the care provided and the home environment; it was the first inspection since the current registration, while the previous provider's ratings were published in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 2023 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 Lightbowne Hall
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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 Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.