CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Longdown Road
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staff understood safeguarding and people's risks, and medicines were managed well. However, some health and safety actions had been outstanding for up to 18 months, and parts of a bathroom were difficult to keep hygienic.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People had access to healthcare professionals, relevant health plans and trained staff. The building needed refurbishment and repairs, including carpets, windows and a wet room identified in an independent report.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- Some staff were kind, respectful and protective of people's privacy. However, staff were sometimes task-focused, records did not show people's views clearly, and inspectors saw communication and language that compromised dignity.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- People were not regularly supported with their chosen social and leisure interests, and activities were often repetitive or house-based. Communication plans were not always followed and information was not provided in accessible formats.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits did not identify important safety, building and care-record problems, and people were not routinely involved in service planning. Staff and families nevertheless said they felt supported and could raise concerns.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and safe support in some areas, but serious shortfalls in person-centred care, the building and management oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 January 2022. Two inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records. Feedback was also obtained from healthcare professionals.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found that staff generally kept people safe, managed medicines well, followed infection control procedures and worked effectively with healthcare professionals. People appeared relaxed, and relatives and professionals gave positive feedback about the care.
However, people did not always have meaningful activities, choices or support to build independence. Staff did not always use people's preferred communication methods. The building needed repairs and decoration, and important health and safety actions had not been completed promptly.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. CQC identified breaches about person-centred care, premises and equipment, and good governance. The provider was asked for an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and return to inspect.
Medicines were managed well
Medicines records, stock checks, audits and staff competency checks were in place. People also had their medicines reviewed regularly.
“People received their medicines safely as robust medicines systems were in place.” from the report
Staff understood safeguarding
Staff could identify abuse, explain how to report concerns and describe people's risks. Safeguarding concerns were reported to the local authority and CQC when required.
“People were kept safe from harm as staff had a good understanding of what may constitute abuse and what to do in response to it.” from the report
Good healthcare links
The home worked with health and social care professionals. People had health action plans and hospital passports, and staff followed specialist advice about nutrition and choking risks.
“The service worked well with other professionals to ensure people's health needs were met effectively and in a timely manner.” from the report
Some positive relationships
Inspectors saw positive interactions, and people appeared relaxed and confident with staff. Staff also helped people keep in touch with important relatives.
“We observed positive interactions between staff and those whom they supported and feedback from family members and healthcare professionals was positive.” from the report
Delayed safety work
seriousThe provider did not deal promptly with gas, Legionella and fire safety actions. Some checks and actions had been outstanding for 18 months, although the provider said work was completed or scheduled after the inspection.
“The provider did not act on findings of safety checks of the living environment and equipment to minimise risk to people, some of which were outstanding for 18 months.” from the report
Limited meaningful activities
seriousPeople did not regularly receive support with activities they had chosen. Additional one-to-one hours were not clearly recorded or used for individual meaningful activities.
“People were not supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis.” from the report
Communication plans were not followed
seriousMost support plans were written in ways people could not understand, with no Easy Read information. Staff did not always use the communication aids or methods set out in care plans.
“The failure to ensure people's communication plans were followed and that information was presented in a way they could understand was a further breach of regulation 9” from the report
Poor condition of the building
seriousParts of the home were in poor decorative and repair condition. Recommendations about carpets, mould-related windows and a wet room had not been acted on.
“The failure to ensure that the premises were properly maintained was a breach of regulation 15 (Premises and equipment) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not identify important safety and care problems. Records did not consistently show people's views, daily experiences or the benefit of support, and people were not routinely involved in service planning.
“The failure to ensure robust oversight of the service, effective quality assurance systems, comprehensive records and to act upon non-compliance identified in health and safety audits was a breach of regulation 17” from the report
- 01What work has now been completed on the gas, Legionella and fire safety actions, and can you show us the latest checks?
- 02How will you make sure each person has regular activities based on their own interests, including use of any one-to-one support hours?
- 03How are people's communication plans being followed by permanent, agency and new staff?
- 04What repairs and refurbishment have been completed since the inspection, including carpets, windows, the bathroom and the wet room?
- 05How are people and their families now involved in care planning, service meetings and decisions about who they live with?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection since the service registered with CQC on 1 December 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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 Longdown Road
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2020.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.