CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lindsay House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visits, admissions, testing, PPE, social distancing, cleaning and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Lindsay House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 May 2021. It focused on how the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infections.
Inspectors found that visits, admissions, testing, personal protective equipment, social distancing and cleaning arrangements were in place. They were assured that infection risks were being managed, and noted that the service had never had a case of COVID-19.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. Safe was also inspected but not rated. The other four areas were not assessed in this inspection.
Safe visiting
The home arranged visits with health checks, temperature checks and lateral flow testing. It also had a designated visiting room and supported compassionate visits at the end of life.
“A designated room had been set up to enable safe visits whilst also respecting people's privacy.” from the report
Safe admissions
New admissions were risk assessed and required a negative COVID-19 test before admission from hospital or the community.
“Admissions into Lindsay House were risk assessed and followed guidance for safe admissions.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found arrangements for testing, PPE, social distancing and cleaning. The service had not had a COVID-19 case at the time of inspection.
“The service had never had a case of COVID-19.” from the report
Clean surroundings
The home appeared clean and hygienic, with regular cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“Domestic staff followed a cleaning schedule that included regular cleaning of high touch areas such as door handles and light switches.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently managed, including health checks, testing and private visiting arrangements?
- 02How are new admissions risk assessed and tested before they move in?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 04How are staff trained and checked on the safe use of PPE?
- 05What ratings or inspection findings cover caring, responsive care, effectiveness and leadership, which this inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 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, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but heard concerns about staffing, activities and communication.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 12 December 2019. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with seven people, five relatives and eight staff. They looked around the home, observed care and meals, and checked care, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally felt safe and received kind and respectful care. Medicines, recruitment, staff training, food and infection control were found to be managed well.
Inspectors also heard some concerns. Staff numbers and delays answering call bells were raised. Feedback about activities was mixed. Some relatives were not always involved in care plan reviews or told about changes in health. The home took action during or after the inspection to address some of these points.
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found that medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely. Staff training and competency checks were in place.
“Medicines were being managed safely. No concerns were raised in relation to medicines management.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and kindness. Staff supported people to make choices and remain independent.
“We observed people being treated with dignity, kindness and received good care.” from the report
Good meal support
People were offered choices and received help with meals when they needed it. The kitchen was clean and there were enough food supplies.
“People were supported appropriately by staff according to their needs. Visual options of meals were offered to people.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had relevant training, supervision and competency checks to support their work.
“Staff received appropriate training to support them in their role.” from the report
Staffing and call bell delays
needs fixingFeedback about staffing levels was mixed. Inspectors observed that call bells sometimes took a few minutes to be answered, and the management planned a new shift pattern.
“They don't always answer the buzzer straight away, but I understand that they need more staff.” from the report
Limited activities
minorActivities were taking place, but some people said there was not enough to do. Feedback about the range and quality of activities was mixed.
“There aren't enough activities, there is very little on offer.” from the report
Family communication
needs fixingOne relative said they were not always told when health professionals had reviewed their family member. The management said it had taken immediate action to remind staff about sharing important changes.
“However a relative we spoke with told us they had not always been made aware when professionals had reviewed their family members health needs.” from the report
Care plan involvement and detail
needs fixingNot all relatives had been involved in developing or reviewing care plans. Inspectors also found that one care plan needed more information, and the management acted on this immediately.
“I was given the care plan to read and sign it however we have not gone through it since.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels on each shift, and how quickly are call bells usually answered?
- 02What activities are now available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and abilities?
- 03How will you involve our family in developing and reviewing the care plan?
- 04How will you tell us promptly about changes in our relative's health or visits from health professionals?
- 05How often will the registered manager be available for people, relatives and staff to speak with?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five questions; the previous overall and question ratings, published in June 2017, were also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 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 Lindsay House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.