CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Linnet House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had individual risk assessments, medicines were generally managed safely, and infection control arrangements were in place. Inspectors found an unlocked laundry door, accessible chemicals, an absent window restrictor, an incorrectly stored inhaler and a medicine stock discrepancy, which were addressed during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff received relevant training and people were supported with meals, health care and decision-making. The home worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, caring and respectful. People were supported to express choices, maintain privacy and dignity, and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans gave detailed guidance about people's needs, communication and preferences. People were supported with activities, community access and important relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had oversight of care and used governance systems to monitor quality and safety. Staff, relatives and professionals were given ways to provide feedback.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Linnet House was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some safety and recruitment checks needing attention.
This was the first inspection since the service was registered. Inspectors visited on 19 April 2023, spoke with all five people living there, relatives, staff and the registered manager, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were supported to be independent, stay healthy, make choices, take part in activities and keep in touch with family and the community.
Inspectors found some issues during the visit. These included incomplete recruitment checks, an unsafe laundry area, an incorrectly stored inhaler and a medicine stock discrepancy. The home took immediate action on the issues found during the inspection, and gave further assurances about recruitment.
Building independence
People were encouraged to set goals and do more for themselves. Staff supported people in ways that promoted choice and control.
“There was a clear focus on independence and people were encouraged to achieve goals that supported this.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions and a relaxed atmosphere. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy and individual needs.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff. There was a relaxed atmosphere and we observed people and staff had positive interactions” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, sensory needs, communication methods and possible triggers. Staff provided activities suited to individual interests.
“People received personalised support which met their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Good leadership
The management team was visible and approachable. Systems for checking quality, safety and staff performance were effective.
“Governance processes were effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people's rights and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff did not have all required checks completed before employment. The provider said after the inspection that this had been corrected and supplied an updated policy.
“Recruitment checks were not always fully completed as some staff did not have the appropriate checks before being employed in the service.” from the report
Environmental safety
needs fixingAn unlocked laundry door, accessible harmful chemicals and a missing window restrictor were found. The registered manager dealt with these issues immediately, and the broken door lock was fixed during the inspection.
“During our inspection we noted that the laundry door was unlocked and folded up paper had been put in the lock, there was no window restrictor on the window and chemicals which could cause harm were easily accessible.” from the report
Medicine storage and stock
needs fixingAn inhaler was stored incorrectly and there was a discrepancy in one person's medicine stock balance. The registered manager took immediate action to resolve this.
“During our inspection we found that an inhaler was being stored incorrectly and there was a discrepancy in a person's medicine stock balance.” from the report
Wear and tear
minorSome parts of the home had visible wear to the decoration. Management knew about this and had plans to address it.
“There were some areas of the home that had visible signs of wear and tear to the décor.” from the report
- 01What recruitment checks have now been completed for every member of staff, including checks on previous employment and gaps in employment?
- 02How do you check that medicines are stored correctly and that stock balances are accurate?
- 03What checks are now in place to make sure the laundry door, window restrictors and harmful chemicals remain safe?
- 04What work has been completed, or is planned, to address the worn decoration?
- 05How will you continue supporting my relative's independence, communication, activities and contact with family?
This was the first inspection and covered all five key questions, including care, the premises and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 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.
Every inspection of Linnet House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 November 2021.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.