CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Longridge Hall and Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and there were enough staff to meet their needs. However, some checks with previous employers in health and social care were missing from recruitment files, so the provider was asked to review its recruitment processes.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and people received support with food, drink and healthcare. Staff worked well with health and social care professionals and followed the Mental Capacity Act principles.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, patience and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was based on people's choices and preferences, and activities were available on both floors. One of the four care records reviewed did not clearly describe a person's current support needs, but the manager amended it during the inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as visible, approachable and supportive. Audits and checks were used to monitor quality, and records showed the home worked with other organisations when people needed extra support.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some recruitment checks were missing.
The inspection was unannounced and took place from 4 to 6 April 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines, staffing, recruitment files, safety checks and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, kind care, suitable activities and good links with health professionals. People and relatives said they felt safe and were happy with the care.
There were some areas to improve. Some recruitment checks with previous employers were missing, one of four care records did not clearly describe current support needs, and some minor fire safety improvements were still outstanding. The provider took action during and shortly after the inspection to address the recruitment risks.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels met people's needs and supported their safety.
“There were enough staff employed. Our observations at inspection and staffing rotas supported this.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient, friendly and knew people's preferences and diverse needs.
“Staff treated people with care, patience and kindness.” from the report
Good healthcare links
The home worked effectively with health and social care professionals to provide joined-up support.
“My colleagues and I can't fault the support we get when we visit.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could take part in activities suited to their interests, with activity coordinators on both floors.
“The service employed activities coordinators on both floors of the home.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousSome recruitment files did not show checks with previous employers in health and social care. The report says this could create a risk of unsuitable staff being employed, although no one had been harmed and action was taken.
“Some safe recruitment procedures were not always followed and this could lead to the employment of unsuitable staff.” from the report
One care record was unclear
needs fixingOne of the four care records reviewed did not clearly show the person's current support needs. The record was amended during the inspection.
“However, on 1 of the 4 care records we considered, the current position around support needs for a person was unclear.” from the report
Minor fire safety work outstanding
minorSome improvements recommended by a fire safety expert were still outstanding because parts were unavailable. The provider had prioritised the work and ordered the parts.
“We noted the provider had prioritised this work and some relatively minor areas were outstanding.” from the report
- 01Have all missing checks with previous health and social care employers now been completed for every staff member?
- 02What remaining fire safety improvements were identified, and have they now been completed?
- 03How do you check that care plans accurately describe people's current support needs when those needs change?
- 04How are residents and relatives' views used to shape care, activities and the running of the home?
This was an unannounced inspection of the newly registered service that covered all five key questions, the premises and infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 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, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors checked how the home prevented and controlled infection.
Inspectors found good practice in all the areas they looked at. Staff, managers and visitors used protective equipment correctly. The home was clean, had regular testing, and had updated infection control procedures.
The home had several visiting facilities and kept families informed about visiting rules. Inspectors were assured that people were admitted safely, outbreaks could be managed, and there were enough staff to maintain support.
Protective equipment
Staff, managers and visitors were using protective equipment correctly. The home also had strong procedures for using and disposing of it.
“We noted good practices in all of the areas we considered including the use of and disposal of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Infection prevention
The home had regular testing, hand sanitiser, cleaning arrangements and updated infection control policies. Its layout could support separating areas if there was widespread infection.
“The provider and registered manager had comprehensive processes to minimise the risk to people, staff and visitors from catching and spreading infection.” from the report
Family visiting
The home had three visiting facilities and reviewed its arrangements as rules changed. Visiting information was shared with people and relatives through several methods.
“There were three sets of visiting facilities in the home that should address all current and future controlled safe visiting situations.” from the report
Staffing and support
Inspectors found enough staff to provide continuity of support. Staff had pandemic-related supervision and access to wellbeing support.
“There were sufficient staff to provide continuity of support and ensure safeguards were in place should there be a staff shortage.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are people living here and staff tested now, and what happens if someone has a positive result?
- 02Which visiting facilities are currently available, and how are visiting rules explained to families?
- 03How would you separate parts of the home and allocate staff if there was an infection outbreak?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff to maintain continuity of support during staff shortages?
- 05How are residents and staff supported with COVID-19 vaccination decisions and access?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not a full inspection of all care areas, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 May 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.
Every inspection of Longridge Hall and Lodge
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.