CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Long Lea Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but ongoing safety, record-keeping and management problems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection over 4 and 6 July 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
There were enough staff on duty and people were generally given their medicines as prescribed. Staff were kind, respected people's choices and supported activities, communication and end of life wishes. Food and mealtimes were also viewed positively.
However, records did not always show that care plans and safety instructions were followed. Inspectors found gaps in repositioning records, incorrectly set mattresses, an unsafe catheter bag position and medicine recording problems. Frequent management changes continued to affect consistency. The home remained in breach of Regulations 12 and 17 and was rated Requires Improvement overall.
Enough staff
Inspectors observed enough staff to support people's care needs. People said they did not have to wait long for help.
“Our observations indicated there were enough staff to support people with their care needs” from the report
Food and mealtimes
Catering staff understood people's nutritional needs and preferences. Inspectors found fresh food, suitable choices and a quieter, more relaxed dining area.
“Meals were prepared in the home from fresh ingredients.” from the report
Risks were not always managed
seriousRecords did not always show that repositioning plans were followed. Inspectors also found mattresses set incorrectly, a catheter bag in an unsafe position and missing action around pressure-relieving boots.
“Records showed frequent gaps of more than 2 hours between repositioning for these people.” from the report
Medicine records and checks
seriousA time-critical medicine had been missed without evidence of medical advice or extra checks. Records for some as-required medicines did not clearly explain why they were given or whether they worked.
“One person had missed a time critical medicine shortly before our visit.” from the report
Management instability
needs fixingThere had been frequent changes in managers and senior staff. Inspectors said this affected consistency in care standards and that the provider needed to reassure relatives about management stability.
“Significant changes in management and senior staff continued at this inspection.” from the report
Quality checks were not enough
needs fixingThe provider had audits and an improvement plan, but important records were not detailed enough and identified learning was not always put into practice promptly.
“systems to monitor people's health and wellbeing required more day-to-day scrutiny.” from the report
Infection control issues
needs fixingA split crash mat and slings left on wardrobe floors created infection control risks. The manager said these issues would be addressed.
“One person's crash mat was split exposing the core” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that repositioning plans, pressure-relieving equipment and catheter care instructions are followed every time?
- 02What has changed to prevent missed or poorly recorded medicines, including time-critical and as-required medicines?
- 03Who is currently responsible for the home, and how will you provide continuity after the recent management changes?
- 04How do you check that staff training is being followed in everyday care practice?
- 05What action has been completed in response to the CQC Notice of Proposal and the two breached regulations?
This was a focused inspection covering all five key questions, with infection prevention and control also reviewed; the report says Caring and Responsive remained Good while Safe, Effective and Well-led were Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 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.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Long Lea Residential Home is Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found better management oversight but continuing risks with staffing, medicines and infection control.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 and 2 November 2022. Inspectors checked whether previous legal requirements had been met, looked at safety and leadership, and considered infection control. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, observed care, and reviewed care plans, recruitment records and management information.
The home had made significant improvements since the previous inspection. New management and stronger quality checks had improved risk assessments, care planning and oversight. However, these systems were not yet fully established. People sometimes waited for help, shifts did not always have enough experienced staff, medicine records had gaps, and some hygiene and building safety risks remained.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Safe was rated Requires Improvement and the home remained in breach of Regulation 12, Safe care and treatment. Well-led improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement, and the previous breach of Regulation 17 was no longer present. The home had been rated Requires Improvement at its last three inspections.
Improved oversight
The provider had strengthened its management checks, risk management and care planning since the previous inspection.
“Significant improvements had been made since our previous inspection.” from the report
Risk plans
Where risks had been identified, care plans generally explained what staff should do to reduce them.
“Where risks had been identified, there were plans in place to inform staff of the actions to take to manage those risks and minimise any potential impact.” from the report
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Positive relationships
People spoke positively about staff and the way the home was managed. Staff said they felt supported and described a more open culture.
“People spoke positively about how the home was managed.” from the report
Safer recruitment
The provider had improved recruitment checks, including references and DBS checks.
“Improvements had been made to recruitment processes.” from the report
Staffing and waiting
seriousVacancies meant the home relied heavily on agency staff and shifts did not always include enough experienced workers. Inspectors saw delayed responses to call bells and some people said they had to wait for help.
“Call bells were not responded to in a timely way during out inspection visit and some people told us they had to wait for assistance.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousTopical medicine records had significant gaps. Patches were not always rotated as required, creating a risk that medicines were not given as prescribed or could cause harm.
“Records showed significant gaps in the application records for topical medicines that were applied directly to the skin.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingInspectors found slings and cleaning equipment stored in unsuitable places and a dirty, stained pillow left on a bed. These practices could increase the risk of infection.
“Some slings were stored on the floor in a bedroom and a store cupboard and a dirty, stained pillow had not been removed from a person's bed.” from the report
Building safety records
needs fixingWater temperature checks did not cover the right ranges, and the fire risk assessment and evacuation plan were not accurate or complete. The provider improved some of these arrangements during the inspection.
“The fire risk assessment and evacuation plan were not accurate and did not contain key information.” from the report
- 01How many permanent and agency care staff are currently working, and do shifts now include staff with the right experience for residents' needs?
- 02How do you check that topical medicines are applied, recorded and rotated according to instructions?
- 03What action has been taken to reduce missed care tasks and delayed responses to call bells?
- 04What has changed since the inspection to improve storage of slings, cleaning equipment and bedding hygiene?
- 05Has the fire risk assessment and evacuation plan been fully corrected, and are water safety checks now complete?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 December 2022 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 Long Lea Residential Home
10 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- October 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2010.
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 Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.