CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Linden Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting arrangements and outbreak planning. The provider also described measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Linden Cottage was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for visits, with some clutter and an inaccessible garden area.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 10 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, followed hygiene measures and had plans for an outbreak. People were supported to keep seeing family and friends, or to stay in touch by phone and video calls.
People continued with usual routines, local activities and activities at home. The home was clean, although it was cluttered in places. The garden was not fully accessible while building work was planned.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the five questions.
Family contact
Staff supported people to keep in touch with relatives through visits, garden visits, telephone calls and video calls.
“People were supported by staff to have visits from friends and family.” from the report
Maintaining routines
People were supported to go out, attend a local day centre and take part in activities such as baking and arts and crafts.
“People were supported with their normal routines.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, carried out testing and had plans to prevent or manage outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Health support
The report says people had annual health checks and that the home had regular support from its GP during the pandemic.
“Everyone had annual health checks.” from the report
Clutter
minorThe home was clean, but inspectors found clutter in some places.
“The home was cluttered in places but was clean throughout.” from the report
Garden access
minorThe garden was not fully accessible while building work was about to start. The home said people would only use the area with staff support and that it would be cleared soon.
“The garden was not fully accessible to people, but we were assured people would only use the area with staff support and the area would be cleared imminently.” from the report
- 01Has the garden now been cleared and made fully accessible, and what happened with the planned building work?
- 02How are COVID-19-related staffing pressures managed if regular staff are unavailable?
- 03What training do long-term agency staff receive before supporting people with medicines and epilepsy?
- 04How are family visits and video or telephone contact arranged if face-to-face visits cannot take place?
- 05How are cleaning schedules and clutter checked and followed up?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some limits on community access and building repairs.
This was a planned inspection. The inspector visited on 3 April 2019 and spoke by telephone with a relative on 4 April. They spent time with all four people living there, spoke with staff and the manager, and checked care records, medicines, training, safety and management systems.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable training, clean facilities and systems to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.
People were supported to make choices and communicate in ways that suited them. Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Inspectors also noted that two people needed more one-to-one support to go out without waiting for a group, and that some window, woodwork and blind repairs were still due.
Safe staffing and support
Staffing levels had been calculated around people's needs, and records showed enough staff were available. Staff used equipment safely and supported people with mobility and personal care.
“People received safe support from support staff who had the knowledge and skills they needed.” from the report
Skilled staff
New staff completed introductory training and shadow shifts. Existing staff had refresher training and supervision, including training for specialist health needs.
“Support staff knew how to support people in the right way.” from the report
Respect and communication
Staff used people's chosen names, allowed time for replies and used pictures, drawings and photographs to support communication and choice.
“People had been supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their support as far as possible.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans were written with people, relatives and healthcare professionals. They were reviewed to reflect changing needs and wishes.
“People received personalised support that was responsive to their needs including their right to have information presented to them in an accessible manner.” from the report
Good management checks
The manager checked medicines, incidents, health and safety and care records. Staff meetings supported teamwork and accurate record keeping.
“The registered manager had completed quality checks to ensure that people reliably received safe support that met their needs and expectations.” from the report
More one-to-one community support needed
needs fixingTwo people needed more one-to-one support to access the community without waiting to go out in a small group. Extra funding was still being negotiated.
“The registered manager was negotiating with commissioners for the necessary funding.” from the report
Some repairs were outstanding
minorInspectors found a misted double-glazed window and stained or damaged woodwork and blinds in the conservatory. Repairs were expected in the near future.
“Most areas of the accommodation were well presented. However, in one of the bedrooms a double glazed window was misted up inside and looked unsightly.” from the report
- 01Has the extra one-to-one funding for the two people mentioned in the report been agreed?
- 02How often can each person go out into the community, and what happens if they do not want to wait for a group activity?
- 03Have the misted bedroom window and the damaged or stained conservatory woodwork and blinds now been repaired?
- 04How will staff communicate with my relative using sign-assisted language and other accessible methods?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing their support plan and decisions about their care?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous Good overall rating from 28 September 2016 was maintained. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 May 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.
Every inspection of Linden Cottage
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.