CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Linwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks were assessed and monitored, staffing was sufficient, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supervision, and people's physical, mental and social needs were assessed. People were supported with nutrition, healthcare and decisions under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and supported to maintain independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, relationships, community access and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found good leadership, regular communication and quality checks. The home used feedback, incidents and partnership working to make improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the home larger than current best practice guidance.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 14 and 16 August 2019. One inspector and an assistant inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and other professionals. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home supported 13 adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people felt safe and happy, and that staff understood their needs. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and risks to people's health and welfare were assessed and monitored.
Inspectors found kind and respectful care. People were supported to make choices, stay active, use the community, pursue interests and maintain relationships. Care plans were personalised, health needs were managed, and people were involved in food choices and daily decisions.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating in each area as at the previous inspection, published on 8 February 2017.
Enough familiar staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The manager covered shifts when needed, so agency staff were not used and people were supported by staff who knew them.
“The service had sufficient staff to meet people's needs and ensure their safety.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans contained individual information about people's needs, wishes and communication. Staff knew how to support people in the way they preferred.
“People's care plans were person-centred, and staff had the information required to provide care in an individualised way.” from the report
Independence and activities
People were supported to work, volunteer, follow hobbies and use local services. They could access the community with staff or independently.
“People were supported to pursue hobbies and interests.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw that staff knew people well and respected their choices, privacy and dignity. People were involved in daily decisions about their care.
“Staff treated people respectfully and we could see staff knew people very well.” from the report
Good medicines practice
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff were trained and medicines were checked through weekly audits.
“Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for 13 people and all 13 places were in use. Inspectors noted that this was larger than current best practice guidance, although they said the building and arrangements reduced any negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
Incident records
minorIncident and accident records were held in individual care records. Inspectors suggested a central log would make it easier to identify patterns, and the manager implemented one during the inspection.
“We discussed with the manager, about implementing a central log which would make it easier to analyse themes, this was immediately implemented.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's specific health risks, such as falls, choking or behavioural triggers?
- 02How do you make sure medicines remain accurate and safe, and what happens if an error is found?
- 03How would my relative be supported to work, volunteer, follow hobbies or access the community?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in care planning and daily decisions?
- 05How do you monitor incidents and use the central log to identify patterns and make improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 September 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvements continuing under new ownership.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 January 2017. They spoke with six people using the home, staff, the manager and the provider. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff training and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management and staff who understood safeguarding and people’s decision-making rights.
People were supported to make choices, stay in contact with family and friends, and take part in activities, education, work and community life. Inspectors also found kind staff, personalised care and respect for privacy and dignity.
The home had new ownership and refurbishment work was under way. People and staff described improvements, and systems were in place to monitor quality. The report did not identify any breaches of regulations.
Kind, individual care
People said staff were kind, helpful and willing to listen. Inspectors saw relaxed and friendly interactions, with staff treating people as individuals.
“People looked relaxed and comfortable with staff and there was much friendly banter, fun and laughter with staff showing a fondness for people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices and keep developing daily living skills. They helped with tasks such as cooking, laundry and caring for pets.
“Staff promoted people's choice and independence ensuring people were supported to maintain and develop daily living skills.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found organised medicines systems, trained staff and regular checks. There were enough staff to respond to people’s needs, including at night.
“We found the medicines systems were organised and that people were receiving their medicines when they should.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were based on what people wanted to do. People were supported with social events, community visits, education and voluntary work.
“This made people's social lives person centred as they were focussed on individual choice.” from the report
Open management
People and staff were involved in decisions about the home. The manager and provider used meetings, surveys and audits to identify improvements.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Complaints process not tested
minorThe home had not received any complaints, so inspectors could not assess how well concerns would be handled in practice. Staff knew the process and a complaints procedure was available.
“The registered manager told us they had not received any complaints and so we were unable to assess how well complaints would be responded to.” from the report
Provider visits were not recorded
minorThe provider carried out routine visits, but these were not recorded at the time of inspection. The provider said this would be done at set intervals in future.
“The provider told us these visits were not recorded but that he would do so at set intervals going forward.” from the report
- 01How has the refurbishment progressed since the January 2017 inspection, and are any areas still affected by the work?
- 02How are provider visits now recorded, and what actions are followed up after each visit?
- 03How would you support my relative to make everyday choices and keep their independence?
- 04What activities, education, work or community visits could be arranged around my relative’s interests?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a concern, and what happens after a complaint is made?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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 Linwood House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
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 £1,270 a week. 73 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.