CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Longford
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable safeguarding systems, risk assessments, staffing and recruitment checks. Some medicines awaiting return had not been sent back for several months, but the manager took action.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on regularly reviewed assessments and clear plans. Staff had suitable training and worked with health professionals, although one person's total fluid intake was not recorded in the care notes.
- Caring?
- Good
- Residents appeared happy and content. Staff supported people with kindness, privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised to people's communication methods, interests, relationships and preferences. The home supported activities in the home and community and had dealt with two formal complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, regular audits, quality visits and an improvement plan. Staff, residents and families were involved in decisions and improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Longford was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with two record-keeping issues addressed after the visit.
Inspectors visited on 5 and 6 November 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second day was arranged. They met all six residents, observed care, spoke with staff and managers, and checked care, medicine and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, detailed care plans, safe recruitment, support with health needs, and care that promoted choice, independence and community activities.
People had little or no verbal communication, but appeared relaxed and happy with staff. Inspectors found that staff respected privacy and dignity, supported family contact, and adapted activities and communication to each person's needs.
There were two issues that needed attention. Some medicines awaiting return had been kept for several months, and one person's total fluid intake was not recorded in care notes. The manager took action after the inspection and confirmed these issues had been addressed.
Personalised care
Care plans gave detailed information about each person's risks, needs, preferences and activities. Staff used this information to support choice and independence.
“Care records contained detailed accurate information about each person's risks, needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Residents appeared comfortable with staff. Staff supported privacy, dignity, personal choices and involvement in care decisions.
“Staff were friendly and showed affection and compassion to people.” from the report
Choice and independence
Residents were supported to develop life skills, go out, keep in contact with family and friends, and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and support activities. Staff had regular training, supervision and access to senior support.
“There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and do activities of their choice.” from the report
Management checks
The manager and senior managers used audits, visits and an improvement plan to monitor the quality and safety of care.
“A senior manager from the provider organisation visited the home regularly to undertake quality assurance visits.” from the report
Medicine returns
needs fixingSome medicines that needed to go back to the pharmacy had been stored for several months. The manager took immediate action and later confirmed improvements.
“some returns had not been sent back for some months.” from the report
Fluid records
needs fixingFor one person who needed to limit their fluid intake, staff monitored the amount but did not record the total in the care notes. The manager said the recording system had been reviewed and the action completed.
“there was no record of the total volumes within the care notes.” from the report
- 01How are medicines awaiting return to the pharmacy now recorded and checked?
- 02How do you record total fluid intake for people who have fluid limits?
- 03How do you make sure residents with little or no verbal communication can express their choices and concerns?
- 04How many staff are normally on duty during the day and overnight?
- 05How are residents and families involved when care needs change or the home is improved?
This was a planned inspection that looked at the overall service and all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with improvements still needed to activities, staff understanding and the home environment.
This was an unannounced inspection over 30 March and 6 April 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with staff, relatives, friends and health and social care professionals, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities, although it could support up to six. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, detailed care plans, suitable recruitment checks and appropriate support with health care and daily choices.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors still identified some improvements. Activities were not always creative or individualised, some staff needed a better understanding of mental capacity rules, some hospital passports were incomplete and parts of the home needed refurbishment.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found that staffing levels were generally enough to provide the support people needed and to help them attend activities outside the home.
“There were a sufficient number of staff deployed to ensure people received the support they should expect or to attend their external activities.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported their privacy, dignity and relationships.
“We found at this inspection that the culture within the staff team had improved and it was evident staff cared about people and showed them respect.” from the report
Detailed care plans
Care plans gave staff detailed information about people's communication, health needs, preferences and daily support.
“People had care plans which contained comprehensive information about them for staff.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records were complete, medicines were stored safely and only trained staff administered them.
“MARs were completed fully, with no gaps.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff said the manager was approachable and felt supported. The home used audits and action plans to check the quality of care.
“Staff felt supported by the registered manager and they were involved in the running of the home.” from the report
Some staff lacked understanding of legal safeguards
needs fixingSome staff could not explain the Mental Capacity Act or Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards clearly. The provider said training would be changed to include more practical scenarios.
“We did not find that staff were always able to demonstrate their understanding of the MCA and we observed staff practice in relation to restrictions required development.” from the report
Incomplete hospital passport
needs fixingOne person's hospital passport did not explain how they communicated pain or how pain should be managed. Inspectors recommended that all passports be reviewed.
“One person who was unable to verbally communication had no information in their hospital passport on how they would express pain or how pain should be managed.” from the report
Tired parts of the home
minorSome carpets and bathroom fittings needed attention, and the home did not always feel homely. The provider had refurbishment plans and had already started some work.
“We found the environment people lived in was 'tired' in places and as such did not ensure people lived in a homely environment.” from the report
One risk assessment was unfinished
needs fixingAn audit had recommended a risk assessment about eczema and fungal skin infections, but it had not yet been completed when inspectors visited.
“We found that where a recommendation had been made during an audit of care plans that one person would 'benefit from a risk assessment with regards to eczema and fungal skins infections' this had yet to be done.” from the report
- 01What new activities are now available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and communication needs?
- 02How do you check that all staff understand the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in practice?
- 03Have all hospital passports been reviewed, including information about how each person communicates pain?
- 04What refurbishment and repairs have been completed since the inspection?
- 05Has the outstanding risk assessment about eczema and fungal skin infections been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection over two days that looked at the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2017 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 Longford
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 November 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
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.