CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Link House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff knew people's needs and risks, and medicines were given by trained staff. However, inspectors found environmental risks, incomplete follow-up records and gaps in medicines error records, which were addressed immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager and staff supported people well, but the quality assurance system was not strong enough to identify all risks or provide clear oversight of compliance. The home was introducing electronic records and had acted on the issues raised.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but well-led was Requires Improvement and some risks and records needed tightening.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over two visits in September and October 2023. The inspector reviewed care plans, medicines and the building, spoke with staff and the manager, spent time with the four people living there, and contacted relatives and other professionals.
People were supported by staff who knew them well. Their care plans reflected their needs, choices and goals. Inspectors found good relationships with families and other professionals, consistent staffing, suitable activities and support for people to make their own decisions.
The home was rated Good overall and Safe was rated Good. However, Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because checks and records did not always identify risks or show clearly what action had been taken. Concerns about the building, seizure risks, medicines records and window checks were dealt with immediately during or after the inspection.
Consistent staff support
The home had a full staff team who knew people well and provided consistent support. Recruitment checks were also described as robust.
“Full staff recruitment meant people were supported by staff who were familiar to them and were able to provide consistent care and support.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were involved in decisions, activities and the running of the home. Staff supported people to make choices and used the least restrictive approach.
“Everyone contributed to the smooth running of the house and were actively involved in cooking, shopping, cleaning, and attending activities outside the home.” from the report
Positive relationships
Inspectors found that people had trusting relationships with staff. Relatives were involved and said they were kept informed about risks and concerns.
“People spoken with had developed trusting relationships with staff and said they could raise concerns.” from the report
Clean environment
The building was generally in good condition and inspectors found high standards of cleanliness and hygiene.
“The layout and hygiene practices of the premises were good, and standards of cleanliness were high.” from the report
Quality checks missed risks
needs fixingThe home's checks did not identify some risks before the inspection, including uncovered radiators, pipework and unchecked window restrictors. These issues were addressed immediately.
“The provider's quality assurance system was not sufficiently robust to ensure that there was clear oversight of compliance with regulation.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicine errors had occurred, but the forms did not show whether medical advice or local authority reporting had happened. The manager introduced a checklist and said the correct reporting had taken place.
“Although medication error forms had been completed this provided no indication that medical advice, such as 111 had been sought, or that the local authority had been advised.” from the report
Fire safety follow-up
needs fixingFire arrangements were satisfactory, but inspectors recommended a fire safety inspection because the home planned to increase occupancy and regularly used the loft for storage.
“We recommend the registered manager request a fire safety inspection due to the planned increased occupancy and the regular use of the loft space for storage.” from the report
- 01How are possible night-time seizures monitored now, given that there are no waking night staff?
- 02How often are window restrictors checked, and how is the result of each check recorded?
- 03How does the new electronic recording system identify risks and make sure follow-up actions are completed?
- 04When a medicine error happens, how do you record medical advice and any report to the local authority?
- 05Has the recommended fire safety inspection been requested, particularly because the home plans to increase occupancy and uses the loft for storage?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 2024 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, October 2017
Link House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong management.
Inspectors visited on 24 and 25 April 2017. The visit was announced 48 hours in advance. They spoke with five of the six people living there, observed support, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home was found to be safe and well staffed. Risks were managed, equipment was checked and medicines were generally given safely. Staff understood safeguarding, had suitable training and knew people's needs well.
People were supported to make choices, stay healthy and build independence. They took part in cooking, shopping, work, education, holidays and community activities. Care plans were up to date and reflected people's wishes and goals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the home met the required standards at the time of the inspection, although the report still records some points for families to check.
Consistent staffing
The home had regular staff, no reported vacancies and no agency staff use. Inspectors said staffing was planned around people's needs and helped provide continuity.
“There was minimal turnover of staff and no agency usage.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions and develop everyday skills. They took part in household tasks, work, education, holidays and community activities.
“People were encouraged to live independent, fulfilling lives and had opportunities to participate in a range of different social activities, work placements and day centres.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, routines, needs and personal goals. Staff adapted support when people's circumstances changed.
“The service was centred on the individual and they determined how they spent their time and had support when they needed it.” from the report
Strong management and oversight
The home used audits, feedback and incident reviews to monitor quality and reduce risks. Policies were developed with staff and people using the services.
“The service had audits in place to measure the success and effectiveness of the service it provided.” from the report
Medicine error recorded
needs fixingInspectors saw evidence of one medicine error. It was identified quickly, the person was not harmed, and the response included further training and supervision.
“Recorded evidence was seen of a medication error.” from the report
Management handover
minorSome people were unsure while the manager was preparing to leave. The planned replacement did not take up the post, but another appointment was made without delay.
“Some people felt a bit unsure about what was happening as the manager was preparing to leave” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to prevent a medicine error, and how are staff competencies reviewed?
- 02Who is the current manager, and how was continuity maintained after the planned manager change?
- 03How will my relative help decide their care plan, daily activities, meals and personal goals?
- 04How are staffing levels planned when people are unwell, attending appointments or away on holiday?
- 05How are families involved in reviews, feedback and raising concerns?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, carried out alongside another service on the same site that shared some staff and policies; neither service had been inspected since the March 2015 registration and ownership change. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 October 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 Link House
2 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 March 2015.
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.