CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Longlast
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visiting, testing, protective equipment, admissions, hygiene and outbreak planning. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Longlast was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 27 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during COVID-19, and on whether staffing pressures were affecting people.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, admissions, social distancing and possible outbreaks safely. Staff had infection control training, and the home had good supplies of protective equipment.
The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives in several ways. The inspection did not give an overall quality rating. The safe question was recorded as inspected but not rated.
Safe visiting
The home offered different ways for people to see relatives, including visits inside, in a garden pod, in the community or at relatives' homes.
“People and relatives had choice about how they received their visits” from the report
Outbreak planning
Testing and contingency plans helped the home respond quickly when positive cases occurred. The layout was used to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“This helped to minimise the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Infection control training
Staff had completed infection prevention and control training, including how to put on and remove protective equipment. The home also had good stocks of protective equipment.
“All staff had received and embedded their training in infection prevention and control and donning and doffing PPE.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are COVID-19-related staffing pressures affecting people now, and what measures are in place to manage them?
- 02What visiting choices are currently available if infection restrictions are introduced?
- 03How quickly are staff and residents tested when there is a suspected or confirmed positive case?
- 04How are the home's outbreak contingency plans used in practice?
- 05How do you check that all staff remain competent in infection control and the safe use of protective equipment?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating of the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 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, March 2018
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led support, with safe and effective care rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection over three visits in January 2018. Inspectors spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home supported nine people with learning disabilities and could accommodate up to 11. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, clean surroundings and suitable risk assessments. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and access health care.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Outstanding. Safe and Effective were rated Good. Caring and Responsive had improved from the previous inspection, while Well-led remained Outstanding.
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's backgrounds, preferences and needs in detail. Staff used this information to provide consistent, individual care.
“Care records were extremely detailed and assisted staff to identify how to work well with people.” from the report
Activities and community life
People helped choose activities and were supported to keep their hobbies, friendships and faith. Staff arranged opportunities both at the home and in the community.
“There was an emphasis on meeting people's social needs and ensuring that people maintained their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Health support
Staff worked closely with health professionals and supported people to attend appointments. Staff could stay with a person in hospital from 8am to 10pm when needed.
“Staff were adept at ensuring people received their regular check-ups, were referred to healthcare professionals in a timely manner” from the report
Strong management
The management team regularly checked the quality of care and acted on what they found. People and staff were included in decisions about the home.
“There were very effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and record my relative's communication methods, preferences and support needs?
- 02Which activities and community opportunities could my relative take part in, and how would they choose them?
- 03How would you support my relative to maintain friendships, family contact, hobbies and faith?
- 04If my relative needed hospital treatment, what support would staff provide during the visit or stay?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, with the premises and care provided both examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 2018 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 Longlast
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 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
45 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockton-on-Tees
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 £1,190 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 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.