CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Longton Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and enough staffing, but medicines, cleanliness and quality checks were not always safe or effective.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 13 April 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records. Infection prevention and control was also checked.
The home had enough staff to meet people's assessed needs. Staff understood people well, protected their privacy and dignity, and supported people during distress using the least restrictive approach. Relatives generally said people were safe and well supported.
There were important problems with medicines records and guidance, cleaning, and some safety actions. Quality checks had not made sure these problems were dealt with. The home breached Regulation 12 on safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 on good governance.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. This inspection assessed Safe and Well-led only. The other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Rotas were arranged flexibly and people's commissioned hours were being met.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff protected people's privacy and dignity and understood their individual needs. Relatives spoke positively about the support people received.
“Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Support during distress
People had detailed plans for periods of anxiety or distress. Staff were trained in de-escalation and restraint was not used in the home.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Safeguarding and incident learning
Staff knew how to report abuse and concerns. Incidents were recorded, reviewed for patterns and used to identify learning or actions.
“Incidents were reviewed for themes and trends to determine any learning or actions for staff.” from the report
Medicine records and guidance
seriousMedicine administration records had gaps, medicine lists did not always match them, and one stock count was incorrect. Guidance for some as-required medicines was missing or had not been reviewed since 2020.
“We found gaps in people's MARs which meant we were unable to determine if medicines had been given.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousSome areas, including a toilet, kitchen areas and parts of people's flats, were not clean or had deterioration that made cleaning difficult. Cleaning records also had gaps.
“Some areas of the service were not clean.” from the report
Uncompleted safety actions
needs fixingTwo actions from a fire risk assessment had not been completed. Uncovered radiators were also present without the individual risk assessments described in the home's own safety plan.
“During the inspection we found 2 of the identified action points had not been completed.” from the report
Quality checks did not prevent problems
seriousThe home's audits and monitoring systems did not consistently identify or resolve the medicine, cleaning and radiator safety shortfalls.
“These systems were not fully effective in ensuring shortfalls were addressed.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every medicine dose is recorded and medicine stock counts are accurate?
- 02Have all as-required medicine protocols been reviewed and updated, including those that had not been reviewed since 2020?
- 03Which areas were found to be unclean or difficult to clean, and can you show what has been repaired and how cleaning is now checked?
- 04Have the two outstanding fire risk assessment actions been completed?
- 05What individual risk assessments and protective measures are now in place for the uncovered radiators?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 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, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some past medicines errors and a records privacy issue.
This was a planned inspection on 14 February 2020. One inspector spoke with two people, six staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. They observed daily care and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home supported six adults with learning disabilities, autism and/or mental health needs. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines procedures, reviewed risk assessments and good infection control. People were supported to make choices, gain skills and use local facilities.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's communication needs and supported privacy, independence and relationships. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed.
All five areas were rated Good, as was the overall service. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 22 August 2017. Inspectors found one issue about access to care records and noted that previous medicines errors had led to changes in the medicines process.
Enough suitable staff
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs and preferences. Staff recruitment included checks, interviews and time with people using the service.
“There were enough staff available to support people according to their needs and individual preferences.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, build skills and use community facilities. Support was planned around individual abilities, routines and preferences.
“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
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. Staff understood individual communication needs and respected privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with kindness, care and respect.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The home used audits, incident reviews, staff meetings and feedback to identify improvements. Managers worked with other professionals to support people's health and wellbeing.
“Quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place to help drive improvements at the service.” from the report
Past medicines errors
needs fixingThe report says there had been a number of medicines errors and identified gaps in the process. Changes were made and inspectors said further errors had significantly reduced.
“Following a number of medicines errors the management team reviewed the processes and found potential gaps.” from the report
Access to care records
minorPeople sometimes had access to care records kept in an office. The manager said a locked facility would be provided so records were available only to essential staff.
“Although there were times when people had access to it.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the medicines errors, and how do you check that medicines are now given and stored safely?
- 02Have care records been moved to a locked facility, and who can access them?
- 03How will you support my relative to make everyday choices and develop greater independence?
- 04How do you make sure staff understand my relative's communication methods, routines and signs of anxiety?
- 05How do you involve families and health professionals when care plans or restrictive practices need to change?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with care, medicines, staffing, records and management systems reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 2020 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 Longton Court
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 October 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North 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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.