CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Long Meadow Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Long Meadow Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but weaknesses in safety checks and management oversight.
Inspectors visited without notice on 27 and 28 June 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked medicines records, care plans, training records and audits.
People were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, and staff were caring and respectful. People received personalised support, had choices about daily life, and could take part in a wide range of activities. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
The Safe and Well-led ratings remained Requires Improvement. Some risks were not properly assessed, some recruitment checks were missing, and staff did not consistently wear face masks on the first day. Audits did not identify these problems, which was a breach of Regulation 17.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The service had held a Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating for the last seven consecutive inspections. CQC said it would monitor progress and meet the provider to discuss improvements.
Kind and respectful care
People described positive relationships with staff. Inspectors found that staff respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personal choice
People were involved in care planning and could make choices about their daily routines, food and activities.
“People were consulted on decisions about the care they received, food and activities.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered group and one-to-one activities to help reduce social isolation. People said there was plenty to do.
“There was a dedicated activities coordinator who provided group and one to one activities.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found that medicines were stored and managed safely, and staff understood safe administration.
“Medication was managed safely.” from the report
Improved outcomes
The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive improved from Requires Improvement to Good since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection the rating has changed to good.” from the report
Risk assessments were incomplete
seriousSome people's health risks were not fully assessed or documented. This meant there was less assurance that risks were being properly managed.
“Some people did not benefit from up to date risk assessments being in place and not all risks had been assessed to minimise the risk of harm.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not identify several problems, including missing recruitment checks, incomplete care plans and poor PPE practice. This was a regulatory breach.
“Although we found no one had been harmed, the failure to have a robust approach to monitoring the quality of care was a breach of regulation 17 (good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Infection control was inconsistent
needs fixingMost staff did not consistently wear face masks on the first inspection day. They were observed wearing them correctly on the second day after the issue was raised.
“On the first day of inspection, most staff did not consistently wear face masks.” from the report
Recruitment records were incomplete
seriousSome staff did not have all required recruitment checks, including identity checks. The manager took immediate action to put this in place.
“Some staff did not have all the mandatory recruitment checks, such as an ID check.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure every person's risks, including mental health risks, are assessed and kept up to date?
- 02How do you now check that all staff have completed the required recruitment checks before working at the home?
- 03What changes have you made to audits so they identify missing care plan information, damaged furniture and PPE problems?
- 04How will you ensure staff consistently follow face mask and other infection prevention guidance?
- 05What progress has been made with the renovation programme, including the fire doors, flooring and walkways?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, premises and all five CQC key questions, with particular attention to infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 October 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.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control overall but concerns about visits, visitor checks and cleaning records.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 21 September 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control, including COVID-19 arrangements.
Inspectors found suitable supplies of protective equipment, staff training, regular testing, safe admissions and an up-to-date infection control policy. The home was clean and worked with other agencies to improve its practice.
Inspectors were not assured that visits followed current guidance or that essential visitors were checked properly. Extra cleaning records were also not always completed. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a full rating of the home or its wider care.
Protective equipment
The home had suitable supplies of protective equipment. It was stored hygienically, and staff had suitable areas to use and dispose of it safely.
“The home had ample supplies of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). This was stored hygienically and kept safe.” from the report
Staff training
Staff completed training on protective equipment, hand hygiene, infection control and COVID-19.
“Staff completed online training, including putting on and taking off PPE safely, hand hygiene and other infection control and COVID-19 related training and updates.” from the report
Testing and admissions
People and staff were tested regularly, and new admissions were carried out safely in line with government guidance.
“People and staff were tested regularly which helped identify cases of COVID-19 in a timely manner.” from the report
Infection control policy
The infection control policy was up to date and reflected COVID-19 government guidance. The home also worked with other agencies to improve its practice.
“The provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date and had been updated with COVID-19 government guidance.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
needs fixingInspectors were not assured that visits were being facilitated in line with current guidance.
“We were not assured the provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Essential visitor checks
needs fixingProcesses for checking essential visitors had been created but were not being followed during the inspection. The manager agreed to address this with staff.
“However, these were not being carried out at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Cleaning records
needs fixingThe home was clean, but records did not always show that extra cleaning had taken place regularly.
“The home was clean, however, there were extra cleaning schedules in place but records were not always completed regularly to give assurances that extra cleaning had taken place.” from the report
- 01How are visits currently arranged and checked against the latest guidance?
- 02What checks are carried out for essential visitors before they enter the home?
- 03How do you make sure all staff follow the essential visitor checking procedures?
- 04How is extra cleaning recorded and checked for completion?
- 05What were the results of recent COVID-19 testing for residents and staff?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; it did not rate the wider aspects of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 October 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.
Every inspection of Long Meadow Care Home
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
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.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.