CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lindum House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, risks were assessed and accidents were investigated. Medicines were given as prescribed, although opened creams were not always clearly labelled.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff had suitable training, and nutritional and healthcare needs were met. Staff supported people to make choices and worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to express their views, make choices and maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Governance systems identified and addressed shortfalls, records were accurate, and the management team promoted an open and inclusive culture. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Lindum House is rated Good and is no longer in Special Measures; inspectors found safe, kind care, but creams were not always labelled clearly.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 January 2023. Inspectors checked whether the home had acted on the improvements required after its previous inspection. They spoke with 7 people, 7 relatives and 10 staff, and reviewed care records and other documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly, offered choices and supported by staff who understood their needs. Staffing levels had improved and the home had reduced its use of agency staff.
There was one continuing medicines issue. Opened creams were not always clearly labelled, so staff could not tell when they had expired. Inspectors found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, but recommended further monitoring. The home had improved from Inadequate and was no longer in Special Measures.
Improved safety
Risks were identified and managed through detailed care plans. Accidents and incidents were investigated so the home could learn from them.
“Accidents and incidents were investigated to find out why they happened, learn lessons and reduce the risk of them happening again.” from the report
More consistent staffing
The home had recruited more permanent staff and reduced its use of agency staff. People, relatives and staff said this had improved care and teamwork.
“Since the last inspection, the provider had put significant effort and resource to ensure staff were recruited to reduce the use of agency staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw a positive atmosphere. Staff understood people's individual needs and supported their privacy, dignity and choices.
“There was a positive, happy atmosphere in the home with laughter between staff and people.” from the report
Better management oversight
The management team had improved its systems for checking quality and safety. Records were accurate and staff and relatives were involved in improving the service.
“Governance systems were effective in maintaining the safety of people using the service through promptly identifying and addressing shortfalls.” from the report
Creams not clearly labelled
needs fixingSome opened creams were not labelled with the date they were opened. This made it harder to know when they had expired and whether they would still be effective. Inspectors found no evidence of harm but recommended further monitoring.
“People's creams continued not to be clearly labelled when these had been opened.” from the report
- 01How do you label opened creams, record opening dates and check that creams are replaced before they expire?
- 02Have the permanent staffing arrangements and reduced use of agency staff continued since this inspection?
- 03How do you check that care plans and risk assessments remain accurate and are followed in practice?
- 04How do you use feedback from residents and relatives to change the service?
- 05What was the previous rating for Responsive, and when will that key question be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; Responsive was not inspected and its previous rating was used in the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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, December 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, staffing and leadership failures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection over three days. Inspectors reviewed records for 12 people, spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and checked infection control.
People were at risk because health risks were not consistently assessed or managed. Concerns included catheter care, skin damage, choking, allergies, medicines, infection control and not having enough staff. Some people did not receive enough choice or care based on their preferences.
The home had staff training and safe recruitment in place, and inspectors saw some improvements during the visit. However, the provider's checks did not identify or fix important problems. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Inadequate.
Safe recruitment
The report says staff recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“Staff had been recruited safely with the appropriate checks in place before starting work.” from the report
Some training in place
Staff had received training and an induction, although inspectors found that training was not always followed in practice.
“Staff training records demonstrated staff were provided with training.” from the report
Food and drink available
People had enough to eat and drink. The dining experience was better in the residential unit, where people were offered food choices in a dining room.
“In the residential unit, we observed people offered a choice of food and enjoying their meals in a dining room with menus and music playing.” from the report
Improvements started
The provider began making changes during the inspection, including improvements to paperwork, care plans, redecoration and staff consultation.
“The provider was responsive to the issues raised and redecoration began during the inspection.” from the report
People were at risk of harm
seriousRisk assessments were missing or incomplete, care plans were not kept up to date, and required repositioning was not always carried out.
“Systems had not been established to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousStaffing levels did not consistently match people's needs. Inspectors heard that delays affected care, including injections and meals.
“There were not enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome people did not receive medicines at the prescribed times, and prescribed creams were not always applied as directed.
“Medicines were not always managed safely. People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Infection control problems
seriousStaff did not always use protective equipment correctly or follow the home's infection control policy. Some areas could not be properly cleaned.
“People were put at increased risk of infection due to poor practice and ineffective control measures.” from the report
Too little choice and privacy
needs fixingPeople were not always offered meaningful choices about personal care or daily activities. Inspectors also saw personal information being discussed in public areas.
“People did not have choice and control over their care, and care was not always delivered in line with standards, guidance and the law.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousQuality checks did not identify major concerns, and records were not always accurate or securely stored. Incidents and complaints were not consistently used to prevent repeated problems.
“Quality assurance processes failed to identify the concerns raised at this inspection relating to catheter care, medicines and documentation.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made to staffing levels and the use of agency staff since the inspection?
- 02How are you now checking that medicines, including creams and medicines taken with or before food, are given as prescribed?
- 03How are catheter care, skin integrity, choking and allergy risks assessed, recorded and reviewed?
- 04What changes have been made to ensure people are offered meaningful choices about personal care and daily activities?
- 05What action has been taken in response to the CQC warning notice, and when was the latest progress review?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; Responsive was not inspected and its previous rating was carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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 Lindum House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2022InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“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.”
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.