CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Longrun House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, risk management, medicines and infection control arrangements were found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management responsibilities, good staff morale and systems for checking quality and making improvements. However, communication with some relatives needed to improve.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, but communication with some relatives needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 29 June 2021. One inspector visited the home, an Expert by Experience spoke with 10 relatives, and inspectors also spoke with people and staff and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines arrangements, risk assessments, safeguarding procedures and infection control measures. They also found staff were kind, respectful and well supported by managers.
Some relatives were unhappy with communication and felt their concerns were not always handled well. Inspectors said the relationship with three parents needed to improve and trust needed to be rebuilt.
This was a focused inspection, not a full review of all five areas. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive came from the previous comprehensive inspection, and the overall rating stayed Good.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. Staff were allocated clear duties and responded promptly when people needed help.
“We found overall there were adequate numbers of staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines safely and on time. Storage, records, staff training and checks were all described as suitable.
“People received their medicines safely and at the right time.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed engaging positively with people and treating them with dignity and respect.
“Staff were positive, energetic and engaged with people, treating them with kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Good management
The home had clear lines of responsibility. Staff had confidence in the management team, and audits were used to identify and address shortfalls.
“The service was well-organised, with clear lines of responsibility and accountability.” from the report
Learning from mistakes
Inspectors found that the home made changes after incidents or concerns, including extra training and changes to practice.
“People could be confident that lessons were learnt, and changes made, when things went wrong.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingSome relatives said they had to start contact themselves and had problems getting information, including by telephone. Inspectors told the provider that communication and relationships with three parents needed to improve.
“The last relative's survey showed that communication with them needed to be improved.” from the report
Mixed views about staff allocation
minorMost relatives were happy with staff consistency and allocation, but three were not. Inspectors found staffing was adequate, although staff could sometimes be moved between homes on the same site.
“Three relatives were not happy with staff allocation and consistency.” from the report
- 01How will you keep me regularly informed about my relative, especially when visits are restricted?
- 02What has changed to improve communication with relatives and resolve problems with telephone contact?
- 03How do you handle complaints or concerns from relatives, and how will I know what action has been taken?
- 04How often are staff moved between homes on the same site, and how do you protect continuity for residents?
- 05Which current ratings come from the previous comprehensive inspection rather than this visit?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with infection control also checked; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 July 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but identified cleanliness and record-keeping shortfalls.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 January 2019, followed by an announced visit on 29 January. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, staffing, training, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, detailed care plans, suitable training and kind relationships. People were supported to make choices, keep their independence and use community facilities.
The report also found areas needing improvement. Some parts of the home were not clean, staff did not always receive regular formal supervision, and records did not always show people's involvement in decisions and care planning. Inspectors also saw one person’s movement being restricted without a care plan or risk assessment, although the manager acted immediately.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, respect and compassion. People appeared happy and comfortable with staff.
“People were cared for by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's communication methods, routines, likes, dislikes and risks. Staff showed a strong knowledge of the people they supported.
“The support plans were detailed and easy to read.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in activities and to use local community facilities when they wished.
“People were fully encouraged to access their community when they wanted to.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training relevant to people's complex needs, including epilepsy, PEG feeding, active support and manual handling.
“In addition to mandatory training staff received specialist training such as epilepsy, peg feeding, active” from the report
Accessible leadership
Inspectors found clear management responsibilities and leadership that people and staff could approach easily.
“The leadership was visible and accessible.” from the report
Cleanliness
seriousInspectors found cobwebs, dirty bedside tables, dusty hallways and a used urinary bottle next to a person's tea. The provider took immediate action and arranged deep cleaning and weekly cleaning support.
“This all meant staff did not always follow good infection control practices which could put people at risk.” from the report
Unplanned restriction
seriousOn arrival, inspectors saw a staff member restrict one person's movement without a care plan or risk assessment confirming this was appropriate. The manager said it should not have happened and spoke to the staff member immediately.
“There was no care plan or risk assessment that confirmed this was an appropriate use of restrictive practice” from the report
Care records and involvement
needs fixingPeople were not offered copies of their care plans, and records did not always show their involvement in care planning or best-interest decisions.
“This meant people could not review their goals, request changes to be made or monitor their progress if they had the capacity to do so.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingStaff said they felt supported, but formal supervision had not been happening regularly. The manager had plans to introduce more regular one-to-one meetings and appraisals.
“Staff had not been having formal supervision regularly but staff knew they could speak to management whenever they needed to.” from the report
Complaints information
needs fixingPeople knew they could speak to staff or the manager, but information explaining how to make an official complaint was not initially available. The manager put information up in the entrance during the inspection.
“There was no information available that explained what people should do if they did want to complain officially.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingQuality audits were in place, but infection-control checks had not been effective enough to identify and resolve all cleanliness problems. Survey results had not yet been turned into action plans.
“Although the infection control audits were not always effective because we found some areas of the home remained unclean” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the inspection to keep all areas of the home clean, and how is this checked now?
- 02How do you make sure any restriction on a person's movement is recorded, agreed lawfully and kept to the least restrictive option?
- 03Are staff now receiving regular formal supervision and appraisals? How is this recorded?
- 04How are residents and families given copies of care plans and involved in best-interest decisions?
- 05How can residents and families make an official complaint, and where is that information displayed?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; it was the first inspection since the service re-registered from Cream Residential Care to Longrun House in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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 Longrun House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 February 2018.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,020 to £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.