CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Livingstone Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and inspectors found enough staff. They identified an exposed heating pipe, a wedged office door and a fire safety door guard that did not work properly.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had relevant training. People were supported with food, healthcare, healthy lifestyles and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They had privacy in their own flats and were involved in decisions, although guidance about people staying overnight was not clear at the time.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's goals, interests and support needs. People were supported with independence, work placements, hobbies, holidays, social activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had experienced leadership, an open culture and systems for checking quality and making improvements. People, their supporters and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some environmental, medicine-recording and guidance issues to address.
This was a planned inspection on 4 March 2019. Inspectors reviewed information sent by the provider, previous inspection findings and notifications. They toured the home, spoke with four people, observed staff, spoke with managers and staff, and checked care and management records.
The home supported 10 people at the time, in self-contained flats designed to help people with learning disabilities become more independent. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe care, good support with health and food, kind relationships and activities based on people's choices.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was last inspected in July 2016 and was also rated Good overall. The report says the home remained Good overall.
Choice and independence
People lived in their own flats and were supported to manage daily tasks, money, food, activities and work placements as independently as they wanted.
“People said, and showed us they continued to live as independently as they wanted” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors staff were caring. Inspectors saw staff seek consent, respect privacy and support personal relationships and beliefs.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Good health support
People had access to healthcare, annual health checks and support with healthy lifestyles. Staff worked with health and social care professionals when needs changed.
“People were supported to have access to a varied and nutritious diet and the information and support they needed from staff and external healthcare professionals enabled people to consistently maintain their health.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities they chose, including swimming, horse riding, bowling, holidays, college and work placements.
“People had access to a wide range of work and leisure activities of their choice and were supported to maintain any interests or hobbies they had.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found managers accessible and staff well supported. People, their supporters and staff could give views about how the home was run.
“People, their circle of support and staff had a say in how the service was being run and there was an open and inclusive culture within the service.” from the report
Environmental safety issues
needs fixingInspectors found exposed heating pipework in one flat, a wedge keeping the staff office door open and a fire safety door guard that did not work properly. Managers started action and arranged a fire officer visit.
“We noted one person's risk assessment needed to be strengthened further to evidence how potential risks associated with their behaviours and potential risk to the person from members of the public were being managed.” from the report
Medicine recording errors
needs fixingThe home already had an action plan for clerical medicine recording errors. Inspectors found another clerical error during the visit, which was escalated and followed up.
“Whilst undertaking an audit check, a further clerical recording error was identified during our inspection by the services deputy manager.” from the report
Overnight stay guidance
minorA person said they were unclear about the arrangements and guidance for someone staying overnight. The manager said the guidance was updated after the inspection.
“However, when we asked about the current arrangements and guidance in place to inform people about 'staying over' they told us they were not clear.” from the report
- 01What action was taken about the exposed heating pipework, the wedged office door and the faulty fire safety door guard?
- 02What changes were made to prevent further medicine recording errors, and how are medicine records checked now?
- 03What is the current policy for a partner, friend or other visitor staying overnight?
- 04How will my relative be supported to keep their independence, manage daily tasks and take part in work or leisure activities?
- 05How will my relative, their circle of support and staff be involved in reviewing their care and the way the home is run?
This was a planned inspection of the whole service, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a fire alarm issue in three flats being addressed.
Inspectors visited on 28 July 2016 after giving the home a short period of notice. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care records, staffing, training, medicines and quality checks.
The home supported 11 people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management and suitable support with health, food and daily activities. People were treated with kindness, privacy and respect, and were supported to make choices and develop independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found three flats were not linked to the main fire alarm. The manager took immediate action, contacted the local fire officer and reviewed the fire safety arrangements.
Personalised independence
People were supported to make their own choices and build everyday skills. This included managing risks, using public transport, handling some medicines and working towards living more independently.
“People were supported to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Staff respected privacy, personal identity and individual wishes.
“The service was caring.” from the report
Activities and community life
People had regular activities based on their interests, including outings, swimming, beach walks, cinema trips, dance classes and holidays.
“People were supported to develop active social lives and engage in a wide range of individual hobbies and interests of their choice.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider used meetings, surveys and audits to listen to views and check the quality of care.
“There were a range of quality checks in place which ensured that people consistently received all of the care they needed.” from the report
Fire alarm coverage
seriousThe three independent flats were not linked to the home's main fire alarm. The manager took immediate action and began a further review with the provider's health and safety officer and the local fire officer.
“However, we saw the three flats were not linked to the main fire alarm for the home.” from the report
Some staff supervision was behind
needs fixingThe manager said the frequency of some staff supervision meetings had fallen behind. They said this was being addressed with the management team.
“The registered manager told us they had fallen behind with the frequency of some of the supervisions but was addressing this together with the management team.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the further review of the fire safety systems in the three flats?
- 02Are all three flats now linked to the main fire alarm, or what other arrangements are in place?
- 03How do you make sure staff supervision meetings happen at the planned frequency?
- 04How will my relative be supported to develop independence while managing risks safely?
- 05How are activities and community outings matched to each person's interests and wishes?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with ratings given for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 2016 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 Livingstone Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 May 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.