CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Long Meadow
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found people at risk from unsafe care, weak safeguarding and poor management systems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 3 and 9 October 2023, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, training, recruitment files, policies and audits.
The home was not always safe. Safeguarding concerns had not always been referred, important risk assessments and equipment were missing, records of incidents were incomplete, cleaning was not always completed, and staffing shortages meant planned care was missed.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective. Food checks and meal choices were inconsistent, some care plans were out of date, agency staff had not always received an induction, and the Mental Capacity Act process was not always followed correctly.
The home was rated Inadequate overall and for Safe and Well-led. It was placed in special measures, with warning notices issued for safe care, safeguarding and governance. CQC said it would re-inspect within six months of publication.
Medicines
Inspectors found medicines storage was secure and clean, and records showed people received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines safety had improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Healthcare access
People were supported to see healthcare professionals when needed. Records showed access to vaccinations and hospital passports.
“People were supported to access healthcare services and support.” from the report
Some safety improvements
The provider had fitted window restrictors and kept fire safety actions up to date.
“window restrictors were in place and other actions to help ensure a safe environment such as fire safety measures had been completed.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousSafeguarding concerns recorded in care records were not always referred to the local authority. One care plan included guidance linked to seclusion after a previous fall.
“Systems and processes were not always effectively operated to protect people from abuse.” from the report
Unsafe care and missing equipment
seriousSome risk assessments and care plans were missing or inconsistent. People did not always have the equipment identified as necessary for safe care.
“Equipment had not always available to ensure people were provided with safe care.” from the report
Staffing and missed care
seriousStaff shortages affected cleaning and planned personal care. Staff said they could not always complete the care people needed.
“Sufficient numbers of staff had not always been deployed to ensure cleaning tasks were completed and people received their care as planned.” from the report
Poor records and oversight
seriousFood, repositioning, accident, incident and behaviour records had gaps. Audits did not always identify problems that needed fixing.
“Systems and processes designed to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of services and assess, monitor and reduce risks were not effectively operated.” from the report
Food choices and checks
needs fixingFood temperature records were missing on several days and people were not always offered meal choices. Food quality and menu options varied.
“We observed people were not always offered choices at mealtimes.” from the report
Agency staff induction
needs fixingAt least one agency carer had not received an induction before an earlier shift, including information about fire procedures and people's care plans.
“We were concerned agency staff had not always been fully supported to work effectively in the home as they had not always had an induction at the time of their first shift.” from the report
- 01What equipment identified as necessary in the report is now available, and how do you check it remains available?
- 02How are safeguarding concerns now recorded, referred to the local authority and notified to CQC?
- 03What staffing levels are now in place, and how do you make sure planned personal care and cleaning are completed?
- 04How are food temperatures, food stocks and meal choices checked and recorded each day?
- 05Has a registered manager now been appointed, and what evidence shows that the warning notices have been addressed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 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
Rated Requires Improvement overall; inspectors rated Safe Inadequate and found unsafe medicines, safeguarding and environmental risks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 7 and 9 November 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because of concerns about staffing. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, staff files, medicines and safety records.
The home had enough staff during the inspection and recruitment checks were completed. Staff were seen treating people positively, and the home worked with health professionals. However, medicines were not always given safely, safeguarding concerns were not always referred, and risks from fire safety, infection control, windows, heaters and access to unsafe areas were not always managed.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe was rated Inadequate, meaning inspectors found people were not safe and were at risk of avoidable harm. Well-led remained Requires Improvement because management systems did not consistently identify and reduce risks or make lasting improvements.
Staffing levels
Inspectors found enough staff to support people during the visit. Staff provided prompt support when people needed it.
“There were enough staff to support people.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The staff files checked contained references, right to work documents and DBS checks.
“The provider had carried out checks by obtaining references from previous employers, right to work documentation and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks were also contained on staff files.” from the report
Positive interactions
Inspectors saw staff being patient and supporting people's mobility. People appeared to enjoy their interactions with staff.
“People enjoyed their interactions with staff, and we observed staff singing and dancing with people throughout our inspection.” from the report
Working with health professionals
The home made referrals to professionals including dieticians and physiotherapists, and had relationships with social workers and district nurses.
“We saw evidence of the provider working in partnership with others.” from the report
Medicines
seriousSome people did not receive medicines when needed, including one person who went without a needed medicine for three days. Records, cleanliness and as-required medicine instructions were also not consistently managed.
“People did not always receive their medicines when they required them.” from the report
Environmental and health risks
seriousInspectors found missing window restrictors, incomplete fire safety actions, unlocked access to the kitchen, missing heater risk assessments and inconsistent health monitoring. Repositioning support and incident records were also not always complete.
“The provider had failed to mitigate environmental and health-related risks, and ensure people received their medicines safely.” from the report
Infection control
seriousDuring a COVID-19 outbreak, information for people, visitors and staff was not always displayed or known. PPE and cleaning standards were also not always effective.
“People and visitors were not always effectively prevented from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
Safeguarding referrals
seriousSome safeguarding concerns found in records or discussed with the manager had not been referred to the local safeguarding adults team.
“Safeguarding referrals were not always made.” from the report
Weak oversight
needs fixingPolicies were not always followed, records were incomplete, and medicines audits had not produced lasting improvement. Staff did not always receive regular supervision.
“Systems had not been established or operated effectively to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report
Missing belongings
needs fixingRelatives reported that personal items, including phones, watches, glasses and clothes, had gone missing.
“People's personal items which had gone missing ranged from mobile phones, watches, glasses and clothes.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every person receives the right medicine at the right time, and how are medicines records checked now?
- 02How are safeguarding concerns identified, recorded and referred to the local safeguarding adults team?
- 03What actions have been completed to address the fire safety findings, window restrictors, portable heaters and access to unsafe areas?
- 04How will you prevent infection spreading during an outbreak, including displaying information, using PPE and cleaning communal areas and bedrooms?
- 05How often will staff receive supervision, and how will you show that audits and action plans have led to lasting improvements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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 Meadow
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- December 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2022Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 May 2015.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.