CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lingfield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were supported safely, with risks assessed and reviewed. Staff were safely recruited, although the home had a staff shortage and was actively recruiting.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and based on people's needs and professional guidance. Staff had suitable training, including Makaton training, and people were supported with food, healthcare and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and calm. People were involved in decisions, supported to be independent, and treated with dignity and privacy.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People did not always receive the full or intended one-to-one support, and records did not clearly show how it was used. Staffing levels limited individual activities, community access and choice.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had positive leadership, regular audits and an open culture. The registered manager knew people and staff well and worked with other services.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Lingfield is rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but limited staffing reduced people's choice and activities.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 1 February 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People were kept safe, staff were kind, care was personalised, and the home had a positive and open culture.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Staffing levels and unclear records about one-to-one support meant people did not always have enough flexibility to follow their interests, go out or make individual choices.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Safeguarding systems, risk assessments and incident reporting were in place.
“People felt safe from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were encouraged to make choices about their care.
“Staff treated people with calmness, kindness and respect throughout the inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's communication needs, preferences and risks. Staff adapted how they communicated and supported people to make decisions.
“Assessments were personalised and included sections such as "My Life", "What Makes Me Happy", and "Do I Know My Risks".” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found an inclusive culture, regular quality checks and good communication with families and other services.
“People were supported within a positive environment which was inclusive.” from the report
Limited individual activities
needs fixingStaffing levels reduced the flexibility to support people with individual activities and community trips. Relatives said more staff might allow people to do more.
“Staffing levels meant that one to one support in the community had to be carefully planned” from the report
Unclear one-to-one records
needs fixingCare plans and daily notes did not clearly show when one-to-one support was needed, how it was used or whether people received their full allocation.
“It was not clear in care plans or daily notes how this was being used or whether this was being used as intended.” from the report
Staff shortage
needs fixingThe home had a shortage of staff and was recruiting. Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe during the inspection, but the shortage affected people's choices.
“The provider had a shortage of staff and were actively recruiting.” from the report
- 01How many staff are currently working at the home, and how many vacancies are there?
- 02How will you record when one-to-one support is required and confirm that people receive their full allocation?
- 03How often can each person have individual support to go out or follow their own interests?
- 04What has changed since the inspection to improve people's choice and access to the community?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in deciding how one-to-one support is used?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the home was visited on 1 February 2023, with inspection activity continuing until 6 February 2023. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 March 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, August 2018
Lingfield rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but staff changes and some record-keeping needed attention.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 26 February 2018. One inspector spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and the registered manager. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and supported. Inspectors found suitable staffing levels, safe medicine systems, kind staff, support for independence and good links with families and health professionals.
There were some concerns. Staff turnover was an issue. One choking risk assessment did not initially contain enough detail, although an updated support plan and risk assessment were provided after the inspection. Communication materials for people with limited speech or reading ability were also limited. The home was rated Good overall, as it had continued to meet the standard found at its previous inspection in January 2016.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were recruited with checks, and there were enough staff on site to support people and their activities.
“We saw there were enough staff onsite to keep people safe and to support them with their activities.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw relaxed, friendly and compassionate interactions. People were given time to make choices and were treated with dignity.
“We saw kind interactions from staff to people throughout the inspection and that people were allowed time to make their own decisions and choices.” from the report
Independence and choice
People were supported to go out, choose activities and holidays, prepare food and maintain relationships. Bedrooms could be personalised to individual wishes.
“Some people went out freely and regularly out to the shops or to the seaside alone.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored securely and records showed what had been given. Staff had medication training and their competence had been checked.
“This meant that medicines were stored and administered safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans included people's preferences, communication needs, health information and routines. Staff knew the people they supported well.
“The staff we spoke with knew the people they were supporting well and were able to describe their routines and activities.” from the report
Staff turnover
needs fixingPeople and staff said that staff changed frequently. The registered manager knew about this and was reviewing ways to improve staff retention.
“The staff are alright but they keep changing. I don't like it when they change.” from the report
Choking risk records
needs fixingOne nutrition assessment did not initially explain clearly how food should be prepared to reduce choking risk. The home supplied an updated support plan and a specific choking risk assessment after the inspection.
“This did not provide detailed measures staff needed to take to reduce the risk of choking, such as the need to cut food up and how finely food needed to be prepared.” from the report
Limited visual communication
minorThere were not many pictures or visual notices in shared areas to support people who were non-verbal or had learning disabilities.
“However, there was limited pictorial displays and notices in communal areas such as the lounge and dining areas to help to better communicate with people who were non-verbal or who had learning disabilities.” from the report
Survey results not yet turned into actions
minorRecent feedback from people and relatives had not been fully assessed or made into an action plan when inspectors visited.
“However, the feedback had not been summarised with actions at the time of the inspection due to recently being carried out.” from the report
- 01How are you reducing staff turnover, and how will you help residents cope with changes in familiar staff?
- 02How are choking risks recorded now, including exactly how food should be prepared for each person?
- 03What pictorial signs or communication aids are available in shared areas for people who do not use speech or cannot read easily?
- 04What actions came from the February 2018 surveys of residents and relatives?
- 05How are each person's activities, family visits and choices recorded and reviewed?
This was a comprehensive inspection of all five rating areas, and the report says the previous overall Good rating from January 2016 continued. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 2018 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 Lingfield
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.