Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Lister House

Goodpublished 27 November 2018, 7 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors found sufficient staff on the inspection days, timely responses to call bells, safe recruitment and good infection control. They also found gaps in one choking risk assessment, two as-needed medicine protocols and the storage of some creams and thickener.
Effective?
Good
People had access to healthcare, food and drinks, and staff received supervision and appraisals. However, specialist training for dementia and end of life care was not consistent, and two people did not receive their required weekly weight checks.
Caring?
Good
People and relatives described staff as kind, polite and respectful. Inspectors observed patient interactions and found that staff promoted privacy, dignity, independence and choice.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans recorded people's needs, abilities, backgrounds and interests, and people and relatives were involved in reviews. End of life care was available and activities were being developed, although more activities were needed for some people receiving nursing care.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
People and relatives felt the home was well managed, but quality checks did not identify several issues found by inspectors. Some earlier audit actions remained outstanding, staffing oversight was not robust and four safeguarding incidents had not been notified to CQC at the time.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2018

Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but the home's leadership and quality checks required improvement.

This was a comprehensive inspection carried out on 20, 26 and 27 September 2018. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, complaints, rotas and other documents.

The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found enough staff on the inspection days, kind and respectful care, person-centred support, access to healthcare and a range of activities. Medicines were given as required, although some supporting records and storage arrangements needed attention.

The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Quality checks had missed some issues, including missed notifications, missing agency staff profiles and gaps in specialist training. The management team accepted the concerns and took action, but some actions from an earlier audit were still outstanding.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful staff

    People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw patient and reassuring interactions, with privacy, dignity and independence respected.

    “People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the staff and noted they were polite, warm and courteous in their approach.” from the report
  • Person-centred care

    Care plans included people's needs, abilities, backgrounds and interests. Staff were familiar with people's changing needs and involved people in decisions about their support.

    “People received person-centred support from a team of staff who were familiar with and responded to their changing needs.” from the report
  • Staffing responded to need

    Inspectors found enough staff on the inspection days and saw call bells answered promptly. The provider had increased staffing and paused new admissions while recruiting and stabilising staffing levels.

    “Staffing levels were then increased and no new admissions were accepted at the beginning of 2018, whilst new staff were recruited and staffing levels stabilised.” from the report
  • Clean and suitable environment

    The home was clean and well maintained, with outdoor space and design features intended to support people living with dementia.

    “The service was homely and furnished to a high standard. People had access to outdoor space, and chose where they spent their time.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Quality checks missed problems

    needs fixing

    The home's audits did not identify several issues found during the inspection. Some actions from an earlier provider audit were also still outstanding.

    “Quality assurance checks completed did not identify some of the issues we highlighted during our inspection.” from the report
  • Specialist training gaps

    needs fixing

    Staff had completed the provider's mandatory training, but specialist training for dementia and end of life care had not been completed consistently.

    “Staff had not consistently received training specific to the needs of the people who used the service including end of life care or dementia.” from the report
  • Medicines guidance and storage

    needs fixing

    Two as-needed medicines did not have protocols explaining when they should be given. Creams and thickener were also found on bedroom shelves rather than stored safely.

    “We found two protocols for as and when needed medicines were not in place which were immediately implemented following our inspection.” from the report
  • Required monitoring was missed

    needs fixing

    Two people who needed weekly weights had not received them. The provider started weekly weights and contacted relevant professionals after inspectors raised this.

    “However, for two people weekly weights were identified as required and had not taken place.” from the report
  • Leadership oversight

    needs fixing

    Rotas did not have a consistent overall management review. On two occasions there were only two night staff instead of the three assessed as needed, including one occasion when both were agency staff.

    “This did not demonstrate a robust oversight of staffing levels.” from the report
  • Notifications were missed

    needs fixing

    Four safeguarding incidents linked to medicine administration errors had not been reported to CQC at the time. Retrospective notifications were later submitted and other required notifications had been made.

    “There were four safeguarding incidents where CQC had not been notified and were related to medicine administration errors.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What specialist dementia and end of life training has every relevant staff member completed since the inspection?
  2. 02How are as-needed medicines now supported by clear protocols, and how are creams and thickener stored safely?
  3. 03How do you check that people who need weekly weights receive them on time?
  4. 04How are staffing levels and the use of agency staff reviewed across all units, including at night?
  5. 05What new quality assurance checks are in place to make sure incidents, safeguarding matters and required notifications are identified and followed up?

This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the first day was unannounced, and the report says the safe, effective, caring and responsive ratings remained Good while well-led deteriorated to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Lister House

2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Lister House →

  2. March 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. June 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. May 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. June 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire

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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.

“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
Claire A., about Carla M.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
Beatrice N., about Rosemary H.
See live-in carers near North YorkshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.