CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lindum Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risks were assessed and there were enough staff, but safeguarding concerns were not always reported appropriately. There was also limited evidence of learning from accidents and incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received appropriate food, health support and staff support. Care plans reflected people's needs and choices, and staff training and supervision were in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider's audits, action plans and incident records were not reliable enough to demonstrate that quality and safety were effectively managed. Inspectors also found a breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Lindum Court rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe staffing and kind care, but weak safeguarding follow-up and quality checks created risks.
Inspectors visited without notice on 18 and 20 July 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also checked care files, medicines records, recruitment, training and quality records.
People's risks were assessed, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and infection control was good. Food, access to healthcare and staff training were also viewed positively.
However, safeguarding concerns were not always reported properly. There was limited evidence that accidents and incidents were recorded, investigated and used to improve safety. The home's governance systems were not strong enough to show that quality and safety were being managed effectively.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective remained Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were not used in this report.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care. Recruitment was carried out safely, and staff had training, supervision and support.
“There were enough staff to ensure people received safe care.” from the report
Food and health support
People were offered choices at mealtimes, and staff supported those who needed help to eat and drink. Health referrals were made promptly and recommendations were followed.
“The dining environment was calm and pleasant.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Medicines were administered as prescribed, with staff training and competency checks. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed effectively.
“People's medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed.” from the report
Positive culture
People, relatives and staff described the home positively. Inspectors found an open, inclusive and person-centred culture.
“The service had a positive culture that was person centred, open and inclusive.” from the report
Safeguarding follow-up
seriousSafeguarding concerns were not always reported appropriately. Inspectors recommended that the provider review its reporting systems and practice.
“Safeguarding concerns had not always been reported appropriately.” from the report
Learning from incidents
needs fixingThe home did not have a reliable system for recording and reviewing incidents. Inspectors found limited evidence that action was taken to improve safety.
“There was limited evidence of learning from accidents or incidents and what, if any action was taken when things went wrong.” from the report
Quality checks
seriousAudits and action plans were not used consistently, and care records were not regularly audited. This led to a breach of the good governance regulation.
“Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate safety was effectively managed.” from the report
- 01How are you now reporting and following up safeguarding concerns?
- 02How do you record, investigate and review accidents and incidents?
- 03What action plan have you sent to the CQC to address the Regulation 17 breach?
- 04How often are care records and other quality checks now audited, and who reviews the results?
- 05What evidence can you show that lessons from incidents are leading to improvements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective remained Good, while Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 August 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.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, but the well-led rating Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 October 2017 by two adult social care inspectors. They spoke with people living at the home, visitors and staff. They observed care, lunch and medicines being given, and checked care records, medicines records, staff records, safety checks, complaints and quality audits.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found improvements in cleanliness, infection control, the environment, care records and management checks. People were treated with kindness and dignity, had personalised care, and were supported with their health, food, activities and choices.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Inspectors said management and monitoring had improved, but they needed to see consistent and sustained improvement over time before giving a higher rating. A medicines error occurred during the visit, but advice was obtained and the person was not harmed.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff communicate patiently and provide reassurance. People’s privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
“We saw people were treated with respect and kindness.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people’s needs, likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff knew this information and used it to provide individual care.
“People's care records were personalised; information relating to behaviours that may challenge themselves or others were detailed and clear for staff to understand and follow.” from the report
Improved safety and cleanliness
The home had addressed earlier concerns about cleanliness, infection control, trip hazards, equipment and the environment.
“We found the registered manager had worked closely with infection prevention and the quality assurance team from the local authority to improve the service.” from the report
Health, food and activities
People’s health and nutritional needs were monitored, with help from health professionals when needed. Activities included music, games, arts and crafts, spiritual support and celebrations.
“People's nutritional needs were assessed when they were admitted to the service and their dietary needs were kept under review.” from the report
Management improvement needed to be sustained
needs fixingAlthough audits and management had improved, inspectors were not yet satisfied that the improvement had been consistent and sustained for long enough.
“We could not rate the service higher than requires improvement for 'well-led' because to do so requires consistent and sustained improvement over time.” from the report
A medicines error occurred
needs fixingAn error happened while medicines were being given. The person was not harmed, and the manager investigated it and put measures in place to check staff competency and learn from the incident.
“Following administration it was noted an error had occurred. Advice was sought from a GP and the person did not come to any harm.” from the report
Some environmental work was still planned
minorFurther changes to the environment had been identified, including replacing patterned communal carpets and adding ventilation to the new laundry room.
“There were plans to change the heavily patterned carpets in the communal areas of the service after work had been undertaken on the heating system.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made since the medicines error, and how are staff medicines skills checked now?
- 02What evidence can you show that the improvements in audits and management have been sustained?
- 03Have the planned changes to the patterned communal carpets and laundry room ventilation been completed?
- 04How are people and families told about medicines incidents, complaints and actions taken?
- 05How will you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when staff are absent or when community care is being provided?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, with particular attention to whether concerns from the March 2017 inspection had been put right. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 November 2017 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 Lindum Court
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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 £1,300 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.