CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lingdale Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; the home made major safety improvements and left special measures, but inspectors were not fully assured that improvements would last.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 and 12 March 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment information, policies and quality checks.
Safety had improved from Inadequate to Good. Inspectors found safer medicines management, risk assessments, staffing, recruitment and infection control. People and relatives said people felt safe and were well cared for.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The provider had improved its audits and legal notifications, but inspectors were not fully assured that any future problems would be dealt with quickly or that the improvements would be sustained.
The home had previously been rated Inadequate and placed in special measures. It was no longer Inadequate or in special measures after this inspection. The report says one regulation remained breached, but the supplied text does not identify which one.
Safer medicines
Medicines were recorded accurately and given as prescribed and on time. Staff had training and checks of their competence.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) showed people had received their medicines as prescribed, and on time.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found effective infection control arrangements, including safe use of protective equipment, testing and procedures for visitors and admissions.
“Effective infection control procedures had been implemented.” from the report
Consistent staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Low staff turnover meant people were supported by staff who knew them well.
“There was a low staff turnover. This meant people were supported by a consistent group of staff who knew them well.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
People, relatives and staff described a friendly and person-centred culture. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care.
“There was a positive culture at the service. Care was person-centred and people, relatives and staff respected each other.” from the report
Improvements need to last
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured that future shortfalls would be acted on quickly. The provider still needed to embed and sustain its improvements over time.
“We were not fully assured any future shortfall would be acted upon promptly.” from the report
- 01How do you check that the improvements made after the previous inspection are still being followed?
- 02What would happen if a new safety or quality problem was found, and how quickly would it be dealt with?
- 03How are medicines checked to make sure they are given as prescribed and recorded accurately?
- 04How do you decide that staffing levels are enough for the current needs of people living here?
- 05What progress has been made with the planned improvements to the home's décor and furnishings?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 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, April 2020
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety and leadership failures despite kind staff and a positive atmosphere.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with five people, four relatives and 11 staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found serious risks from hot pipes, unsafe bedrails, fire hazards and unsafe areas in the building. The home was not clean, infection control was poor and medicines were not always stored or administered safely. Some people had already been harmed, and the home had not learned enough from incidents.
People were supported by kind staff and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. However, people's rights, privacy, nutrition, health support and complaints handling were not always properly protected. The overall rating was Inadequate, with Safe and Well-led also rated Inadequate, and the other three areas rated Requires Improvement.
Kind staff
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors observed staff responding to anxiety and distress in a caring way.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing levels were based on people's needs and there were enough staff to support people's safety.
“There were enough staff to ensure people's safety.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had access to activities, local outings and support to maintain contact with family and friends.
“People were provided with opportunities for activity and were supported to stay in touch with people who were important to them.” from the report
Involvement in care
People and their families were involved in developing care plans, and advocacy information was available.
“People and their families were involved in developing their care plans.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
Although inspectors found serious safety concerns, they also found a positive atmosphere and staff who felt valued.
“Despite our findings about the safety of the service we found the atmosphere of the home was positive.” from the report
Unsafe building and equipment
seriousPeople faced risks from exposed hot pipes, unsafe bedrails, open hazardous rooms, obstructed fire exits and unsafe storage. Some people had been injured.
“People were at risk of harm due to a failure to manage risks associated with hot surfaces, bedrails and the environment.” from the report
Poor hygiene and infection control
seriousThe home and some equipment were dirty. Used continence pads and gloves were left on floors, and laundry arrangements created a contamination risk.
“Hygiene standards were poor.” from the report
Medicine risks
seriousNo night staff on duty were trained to administer medicines, and medicines were not always stored safely. This could have delayed pain, anxiety or distress relief.
“There was a risk people may not receive their medicines safely, when needed.” from the report
Weak learning from incidents
seriousThe home had not properly investigated some serious incidents or put enough measures in place to prevent them happening again.
“Failure to learn from incidents placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to remove or protect people from hot pipes, unsafe bedrails, obstructed fire exits and other environmental risks?
- 02How are medicines now managed at night, including as-required medicines for pain, anxiety and distress?
- 03How do you now check that specialist diets and food and fluid monitoring instructions are being followed?
- 04How are decisions about shared bedrooms recorded as being in a person's best interests, and how is privacy protected during personal care?
- 05What changes have been made to quality checks, incident investigations, complaints handling and notifications to CQC?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, including both the premises and the care provided; all five key questions were assessed, and the report says the specific incidents that prompted the inspection were not examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 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 Lingdale Lodge
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- April 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 2010.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.