CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Linden House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visitors and admissions.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Linden House Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were safe during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 23 December 2020. It followed a COVID-19 outbreak and looked at infection prevention and control arrangements.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, testing people and staff, following shielding and social distancing rules, and managing visitors and admissions safely. Staff had infection control training and supplies of PPE were plentiful.
The home was clean and had a detailed cleaning schedule. This inspection did not give an overall rating or a rating for Safe. It was limited to infection prevention and control, so it does not provide a full picture of the home.
PPE and staff training
Staff had infection control training and inspectors saw them using PPE correctly. The home also had plenty of PPE supplies.
“Staff had received infection control training. Staff were seen using personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly and in accordance with current guidance to minimise risks to people.” from the report
Testing and outbreak controls
People and staff were tested regularly. Inspectors were assured that the home understood and followed shielding and social distancing rules.
“Staff and people were regularly tested in line with the government's current testing programme.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean, without unpleasant smells, with a strong cleaning schedule and effective cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“The home was clean with no unpleasant odours. There was a robust cleaning schedule in place” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are staff and residents currently tested, and what happens when someone has a positive result?
- 02How do you check that staff continue to use PPE correctly?
- 03How do you manage visitors and new admissions during a suspected or confirmed outbreak?
- 04How often are frequently touched areas cleaned, and which products are used?
- 05When was the home last inspected on care quality, staffing, medicines and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control after a COVID-19 outbreak; it did not rate the other areas of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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, March 2020
Linden House Nursing Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some records and care planning needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection by two inspectors. They spoke with people living in the home, visitors and staff. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files, complaints and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, received prompt support and were treated kindly and with respect. Staff were described as stable, experienced and caring.
The inspectors found good support with food, healthcare, activities, family contact and end-of-life care. The home had systems for managing risks, medicines, infection control, complaints and improvement.
There were some shortfalls. 'As required' medicine instructions were not always detailed enough. Fluid records were not well completed, some care plans were not personalised, people were not routinely involved in care plan reviews, and some bathrooms were used for storage.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff responded promptly when they used their call bells. The home had suitable risk assessments, safety checks and trained staff.
“People lived in a home where they felt safe and well cared for.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw friendly and patient interactions. Staff respected privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“People were cared for by a stable staff team who were kind and caring.” from the report
Good activities and family contact
Visitors were welcomed and people could take part in activities, including one-to-one support for those who stayed in their rooms. The home also had links with the local community.
“There was an extensive activity programme to provide social stimulation and pleasure to people.” from the report
End-of-life care
Trained nurses supported comfort and dignity at the end of life. Staff received support and teaching through a local hospice project.
“People could be confident that at the end of their life they would be cared for with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Medicine instructions
needs fixingInstructions for some medicines given when needed were not always personalised or detailed. Inspectors said this created a risk of inconsistent treatment for people unable to request the medicine themselves.
“However, protocols for when these medicines should be administered were not always personalised or detailed.” from the report
Fluid monitoring records
needs fixingSome records about people’s fluid intake were incomplete. This meant staff could not use them effectively to support people’s wellbeing.
“However, records we saw were not well completed which meant they could not be effectively used to promote people's well-being.” from the report
Care plans not fully personalised
needs fixingCare plans did not always describe people’s individual preferences in enough detail. People were also not routinely involved in reviewing their care plans.
“However, there was no evidence that people were routinely involved in these reviews.” from the report
Bathrooms used for storage
minorSome bathrooms were being used to store items. Inspectors said this reduced the pleasantness of the environment for people.
“Some bathrooms were being used for storage of items and therefore did not provide a pleasant environment for people.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the instructions for 'as required' medicines, and how do you check they are followed?
- 02How do you now record and review people's fluid intake when there are concerns about hydration?
- 03How are residents and families involved in writing and reviewing personalised care plans?
- 04Have the bathrooms that were being used for storage been cleared, and how are bathroom standards checked now?
- 05What has been done to maintain personalised care since the Responsive rating changed from Outstanding to Good?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; Safe, Caring and Well-led stayed Good, Effective improved from Requires Improvement to Good, and Responsive changed from Outstanding to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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.
Every inspection of Linden House Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,020 to £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.