CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Longlands Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection safely. They checked visiting, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, outbreak management and the infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed as a separate rating, although inspectors noted support for residents' emotional and social wellbeing.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although infection control audits and checks were reported.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured the home had safe infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 January 2021. It was carried out because of coronavirus outbreaks and focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found systems to reduce the spread of infection. These included extra cleaning, social distancing, staff training in protective equipment and hand hygiene, infection control checks, and testing for residents and staff.
The home also supported residents' emotional and social wellbeing during restrictions. Staff helped residents keep in touch with relatives by telephone and social media, and provided individual activities.
The home was inspected but not rated. The report only gives findings about infection prevention and control, not a full judgement on the quality of care.
Infection control systems
The home had systems for preventing and managing infection, including extra cleaning, social distancing, testing and infection control checks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training in protective equipment, hand hygiene and other coronavirus-related procedures. Infection control champions monitored practice.
“Staff had undertaken training in putting on and taking off PPE, hand hygiene and other Covid-19 related training.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
Staff helped residents stay in contact with friends and relatives and provided individual activities to reduce isolation and loneliness.
“People were supported to keep in contact with friends and relatives through telephone calls and social media.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection prevention and control arrangements being maintained now?
- 02How are staff currently trained and checked on using protective equipment and hand hygiene?
- 03How does the home test residents and staff for infections?
- 04How are visits and contact with relatives managed now?
- 05What activities are available to support residents who may feel isolated or lonely?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, but some care records and parts of the building needed attention.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 23 May 2019. They spoke with 15 people, four relatives, staff, managers and a visiting professional. They also checked care, medicine, recruitment, training, building and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, kind care, personalised support and activities for people to enjoy.
There were some shortfalls. Records did not always show that one person had been repositioned as planned, and fluid targets were not always written down. Scratched doors, misted windows and limited dementia signage were also noted as needing improvement.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with a breach of Regulation 17. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed staff supporting people with kindness, comfort and respect.
“We saw staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks and medicine systems were also in place.
“There were enough staff employed and on duty at any one time to meet the needs of people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's choices, preferences, cultural and spiritual needs. Staff understood people's lifestyles and communication.
“People's assessments and care plans were person-centred and contained details of people's choices and preferences.” from the report
Improved management
The provider acted on the previous inspection findings and introduced stronger checks on quality. People, relatives and staff were involved in discussions about the service.
“The provider now had an effective quality assurance system to review areas of the service and to drive improvement.” from the report
Repositioning records
needs fixingOne person assessed as being at high risk of skin damage needed repositioning every four hours. Records did not confirm that this had always happened, although the manager acted immediately.
“records had not been completed to confirm this had taken place.” from the report
Fluid target records
needs fixingFor some people at risk of dehydration, fluid intake was recorded but the target amount was not always written down.
“However, the target fluid amount for people was not always recorded on this fluid balance.” from the report
Building repairs
minorInternal doors were scratched and many windows were misted and needed repair or replacement. These works were part of the provider's refurbishment plan.
“Internal doors were scratched and many of the windows were misted and in need of replacement or repair.” from the report
Dementia-friendly signs
minorThe home needed further improvements to signs and visual cues so people living with dementia could identify bedrooms and communal areas more easily.
“Ongoing development was needed to improve signage and objects to enable people living with a dementia to identify their bedrooms and communal areas.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that repositioning plans are followed and recorded every time?
- 02How are people's daily fluid targets set, displayed and checked?
- 03What repairs have been completed to the scratched doors and misted windows, and what work remains?
- 04What changes have been made to signs and visual cues for people living with dementia?
- 05How does the current quality assurance system identify and act on missing care records?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; the previous Requires Improvement rating and Regulation 17 breach had improved to Good with no current breach. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 July 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.
Every inspection of Longlands Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Middlesbrough
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 £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.