CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lisburne Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, staffing levels were considered sufficient, medicines were managed safely and risks were recorded and reviewed. Inspectors recommended clearer guidance for escalating concerns when people refused medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff received relevant training and the home worked well with health professionals. Inspectors recommended clearer guidance for escalating concerns when people declined food or fluids.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no new rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers used audits and incident reviews to monitor quality and involved people, relatives and staff. Inspectors found positive working relationships with outside professionals.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with two policies needing clearer guidance.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 and 22 June 2021. It was prompted by concerns raised by Her Majesty's Coroner about identifying and escalating risks, pre-assessments and working with other agencies. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and checked care, medicines, staff records and management systems.
The overall rating was Good. Inspectors found people felt safe and were treated kindly. Medicines, risk assessments, staffing, infection control, staff training and partnership working were generally managed well. They found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the coroner's concerns during this inspection.
The home received recommendations to improve its medicines policy and its policy on supporting people who decline food and fluids. These were recommendations rather than breaches of regulations. The Safe, Effective and Well-led ratings were Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected at this visit.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were good on the inspection days. People said they did not have to wait for care.
“There seem to be enough staff. Many of them go above and beyond with what they do for the residents.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were recorded as given as prescribed. Staff were assessed as competent, and controlled medicines were stored and handled safely.
“People's medicines were managed safely. Staff who administered medicines were competent for this role and supported people in a caring and patient way.” from the report
Good infection control
The home was clean and tidy. Inspectors were assured that protective equipment, testing, visiting arrangements and infection control systems were being used safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Effective health support
The home referred people to health professionals when needed and had positive working relationships with them. Advice was acted on.
“I have found the staff to be proactive and very engaging. They have a good relationship with the GP and any advice given has been acted on.” from the report
Active quality checks
Managers audited care records, reviewed incidents and acted on issues identified. This helped the home look for patterns and reduce repeat incidents.
“Actions identified through the audit system were addressed appropriately and in a timely way.” from the report
Medicines policy
needs fixingStaff knew how to escalate concerns when someone did not take prescribed medicines, but the provider's written policy did not set out a clear escalation route. Inspectors recommended updating it.
“However, the provider's medicines policy did not include a defined pathway of escalation in such cases.” from the report
Nutrition policy
needs fixingStaff knew how to escalate concerns when people declined food or fluids, but the written policy did not set out a clear escalation route. Inspectors recommended updating it.
“However, the provider's nutrition policy did not capture a defined pathway of escalation in such cases.” from the report
- 01How has the medicines policy been updated for people who refuse or do not take prescribed medicines?
- 02What steps will staff take if my relative declines food or fluids, and who will they contact?
- 03How will you assess and review my relative's risks, including falls, pressure wounds or eating difficulties?
- 04How will you make sure my relative receives timely support from the GP and other health professionals?
- 05What parts of the Caring and Responsive areas were last assessed, and when will they be inspected again?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected at this visit and no new ratings were given for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 July 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, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous rating of Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited over two days. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were monitored, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were suitable and staff were trained. People received care based on their needs, wishes and preferences.
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the kindness of staff, the cleanliness of the home, activities and the quality of care. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the last published inspection in 2017. No regulations were breached at this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring, patient and respectful. Inspectors observed positive relationships between staff and people living at the home.
“People were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
Risks were assessed and reviewed, and medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff had medicine training and their competence was checked.
“Medication was safely stored, administered and disposed of in accordance with the medication administration policy.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, likes, dislikes, wishes and preferences. Staff knew people well and used up-to-date information.
“Staff knew people well; they provided care and support that was tailored around people's needs, wishes and preferences.” from the report
Good links with healthcare services
Staff worked with healthcare professionals and made referrals when people's health changed. Inspectors found this led to timely and effective support.
“Positive, effective working relationships meant that people received the required level of support in a timely and effective manner.” from the report
Activities and involvement
A dedicated activities coordinator arranged activities around people's interests. People and relatives were also invited to share their views and suggestions.
“Activities were arranged around people's likes and preferences.” from the report
Manager registration was pending
minorThe home did not have a manager registered with CQC during the inspection. The appointed manager had submitted an application and was waiting for correspondence.
“The service did not have a manager registered with CQC at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Further end of life training planned
minorStaff had access to end of life training, but the manager was still sourcing additional Six Steps training to strengthen staff skills.
“They were in the process of sourcing the 'Six Steps' training programme to further enhance the skills of the staff delivering this level of care.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's CQC registration now been completed?
- 02How do you make sure care plans and electronic daily records stay up to date when a person's needs change?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain suitable for people's changing dependency needs?
- 04What extra end of life training have staff completed since the inspection, including the planned Six Steps training?
- 05How are residents and relatives' suggestions used to change care, activities or the home?
This was a planned re-inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous 2018 report had been withdrawn because of an issue with some information gathered. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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 Lisburne Court
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 2011.
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 Stockport
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.