CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lindum
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including visitors, protective equipment, testing, admissions and outbreaks. They noted rusty fixtures and policies that needed updating.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection, although relatives spoke positively about support for people's quality of life.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection, although inspectors found that people were supported to maintain relationships and access the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection. Staff said they felt supported by the management team and provider during the pandemic.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for community contact, but some fixtures and policies needed updating.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures affected care. The home was given 24 hours' notice.
Inspectors found that the home was clean and uncluttered. Staff used protective equipment and testing arrangements safely. The home followed visiting and social distancing guidance, and supported people to keep in touch with relatives and access the community.
There were some areas to put right. Some fixtures were rusty and could have made effective cleaning harder. The provider said these would be replaced without delay. Some infection prevention and control policies needed review and updating, although Government guidance was being followed in practice.
The service was inspected but not rated. This visit did not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for all five areas of care.
Infection control in practice
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including protective equipment, testing, visiting and outbreak arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Support for relationships
People were supported to stay in contact with important people and to access the community. Relatives spoke positively about this support.
“People had been supported to maintain relationships with those that were important to them and we saw they accessed the community” from the report
Clean and tidy home
The home was visibly clean, personalised, tidy and uncluttered, which supported infection prevention.
“The home was visibly clean throughout and people were independently supported by staff to maintain this level of cleanliness.” from the report
Stable staffing
The home had a consistent staff group and inspectors found that it had not been affected by staffing concerns at the time of the visit.
“The service had a consistent and loyal group of staff and the service had not been impacted by any staffing concerns.” from the report
Rusty fixtures
needs fixingSome fixtures were rusty and could have affected effective cleaning. The provider said they would replace them without delay.
“We did observe some fixtures to be rusty which could have affected effective cleaning however the provider told us they would replace these without delay.” from the report
Policies needed updating
needs fixingSome infection prevention and control policies were not up to date, even though staff were following Government guidance in practice.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policies were up to date.” from the report
- 01Have the rusty fixtures seen during the inspection now been replaced?
- 02Which infection prevention and control policies needed updating, and when were they last reviewed?
- 03How would the home manage COVID-19-related staff pressures if they occurred?
- 04How are visiting and community access arrangements managed when infection risks change?
- 05How does the home ensure protective equipment and testing remain available for staff and residents?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four question areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Lindum was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
Inspectors visited on 14 February and 21 March 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with all three people living there and staff, and checked care records and management documents.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, liked the staff and were happy living there.
Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, managed medicines and risks safely, supported people's health and respected their choices. The home was clean and well maintained, and people were supported with activities, family relationships and independence.
This was a planned inspection because the previous rating was Good. The previous report was published on 15 July 2016, and the rating remained Good.
People felt safe and happy
People told inspectors they felt safe and liked the staff. The report says people were happy living in the home.
“People were happy living at Lindum. They felt safe and liked the staff who supported them.” from the report
Good understanding of individual risks
Staff knew what could make people distressed or lead to risky behaviour. Risks were managed while supporting people's choices and freedom.
“Risk was assessed and managed so that people could continue doing the things they liked to do.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff received training, supervision and induction support. New staff worked alongside experienced staff until they were competent and confident.
“Staff received training, support and guidance so they had the knowledge and skills to do their job well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, needs and life histories. People were supported to follow their interests, take part in activities and go on holidays.
“People received care and support which was personalised to suit their needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff supported privacy, dignity, family relationships and independence.
“Staff knew people extremely well. They knew about the things that were important to them and the things that caused them distress.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's specific risks while still allowing them choice and freedom?
- 02What training and experience would the staff supporting my relative have?
- 03How would you support my relative's health, nutrition and contact with healthcare professionals?
- 04What activities, holidays and opportunities for independence would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was a planned inspection covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, with three people living in the home and two people's care records reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 April 2019 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 May 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.