CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lindhurst
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough competent staff. Inspectors found some recruitment information was missing, and issues with the medicine-key risk assessment and overdue medicine training were raised with the manager.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and understood people's health, communication, eating and mobility needs. Some wording in behaviour-support and communication plans, and some best-interest records, needed review.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and communication methods, and supported choice, independence and contact with relatives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed with people, relatives and advocates. People were supported to communicate, maintain relationships and take part in activities they enjoyed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had approachable management, positive staff relationships and systems for audits, feedback and working with healthcare professionals. Some historical information had not yet been removed from all care plans.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some records and staff checks needing improvement.
This was the first inspection since the home registered in 2020. Inspectors visited on 14 and 18 November 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, an advocate, staff and a healthcare professional, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicine arrangements, clean and suitable accommodation, and care that respected people's choices, dignity and independence.
There were some recording and checking issues. These included incomplete recruitment files, a medicine-key risk assessment that did not fully meet the home's policy, some staff medicine training showing as overdue, and care and best-interest records that needed updating. The registered manager took action or agreed to review these points during the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people treated with kindness and compassion. Staff respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People were observed being treated with kindness, respect and compassion, and they were given support when needed.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's individual communication, health needs, likes and dislikes. This helped them provide consistent support.
“Staff were experienced and had worked with people for a long time, they knew them well.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, stay involved in their care and develop independence in daily activities.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home supported people to keep important relationships and take part in activities suited to their interests.
“People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them and care was provided so people could access activities as they wished.” from the report
Suitable environment
The building had been adapted for people's physical and sensory needs. It included widened doorways, a lift, accessible outside space and equipment to support mobility.
“Staff cared for and supported people in a safe, clean, well equipped, well-furnished and well-maintained environment that met their sensory and physical needs.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment records
needs fixingSome recruitment files did not contain all the required information. The manager agreed to obtain the missing details and require full work histories.
“Recruitment files did not always contain all the information required.” from the report
Medicine checks and training
needs fixingThe risk assessment for medicine-storage keys did not fully address security and accountability. Two staff members were shown as overdue for medicine training, although their competency checks were up to date.
“Although there had been a risk assessment for storage of the keys it did not follow the provider's policy or fully address security and accountability issues.” from the report
Some care records needed updating
minorSome plan wording was not in line with current guidance, and historical information had not been removed from all care plans. The manager said these records would be reviewed.
“Some of the wording used was not in line with current guidance and best practice, so we signposted the registered manager to this to review the plans” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingBest-interest decisions were clear and appropriate, but did not always include all relevant people. It was also not always clear whether relatives had authority to give consent.
“Although these decisions were clear and appropriate, they did not always include relevant persons.” from the report
- 01Have all missing recruitment details and full work histories now been obtained for staff?
- 02Have the medicine-key arrangements been reviewed to meet the home's policy on security and accountability?
- 03Are all staff who administer medicines up to date with their required training?
- 04Have care plans been reviewed to remove historical information and update wording in line with current guidance?
- 05How do you check that relatives involved in decisions have the legal authority to give consent?
This was the home's first comprehensive inspection and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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.
Every inspection of Lindhurst
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 2020.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.