CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Longueville Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; Longueville Court had many infection-control measures in place, but inspectors found some testing and risk-assessment gaps.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 23 February 2021. It looked at how well the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infections. The home was inspected but not rated.
Inspectors found several good measures. These included visiting pods, cleaning between visits, support for video calls, safe admissions, effective use of PPE, staff infection-control training, handwashing checks and good ventilation.
There were also some gaps. One staff member sometimes worked at two care services. Risks for staff using public transport had not been included in COVID-19 risk assessments. Staff were also starting work before receiving their lateral flow test result.
The report gives an assessment of infection prevention and control at that time. It does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five questions.
Safer visiting
The home used two outside visiting pods with screens, intercoms and emergency call bells. Visits were spaced out so the pods could be cleaned and people were less likely to meet others.
“Gaps between visits were also used to clean the pod.” from the report
Support for families
Staff supported people to keep in touch with relatives and friends through computer tablets. End-of-life visits could also take place in the home.
“Staff helped people to use computer tablets to video call family and friends to promote their social well-being.” from the report
Infection-control arrangements
The home had an infection-control lead, staff training, hand-hygiene checks and arrangements for PPE and separate staff routes.
“There was an infection control lead within the home.” from the report
Clean and well-spaced areas
Communal areas were uncluttered, furniture was spread out and windows were opened to support cleaning, distancing and ventilation.
“Communal areas seen appeared uncluttered to aid with effective cleaning.” from the report
Staff working across services
needs fixingOne staff member sometimes worked at two care services. Inspectors signposted the registered manager to government guidance about this.
“There was one staff member who, on occasion, worked at two care services.” from the report
Public transport risks
needs fixingThe risks for staff travelling to work by public transport were not included in their COVID-19 risk assessments. The registered manager said this would be improved.
“Staff who used public transport to travel to work had not had this risk included into their COVID-19 risk assessments.” from the report
Testing before starting work
needs fixingStaff were tested twice a week, but some walked through the building, changed clothes, put on PPE and started work before receiving their test result. Inspectors sent guidance to the registered manager because this was not being followed.
“However, before getting their result staff would walk through to the staff room, change into their uniform, put on PPE and commence work.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent staff working across two care services from increasing infection risk?
- 02Have COVID-19 risk assessments been updated for staff who travel by public transport?
- 03Do staff now receive and check their lateral flow test result before entering work areas or starting their shifts?
- 04How often are the visiting pods cleaned, and how are end-of-life visits arranged?
- 05What infection-control training and hand-hygiene checks do staff currently receive?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated, and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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, February 2020
Longueville Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care records needing clearer updates.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 7 and 15 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They observed care and checked care records, accident and incident records, and complaint investigations.
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 management, suitable training, good health support and respectful care.
People's care plans were detailed and staff knew people's needs well. However, one risk assessment had not been updated and another was unclear. People and relatives also gave mixed views about the food, and inspectors said more colour and signage could help people find their way around.
Safe care and medicines
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, managed medicines safely and used risk assessments to reduce avoidable harm.
“Staff worked well together to ensure people were safe and well cared for.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were involved in their care decisions and relatives contributed to care reviews and care planning.
“People and their relatives were involved in their, or their family member's, care reviews.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw friendly interactions. Staff knew people well, respected their dignity and encouraged independence.
“We saw numerous friendly and respectful interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered one-to-one and group activities, trips out and links with local community groups.
“Staff and volunteers offered a range of activities and supported people with their interests.” from the report
Risk records needed updating
needs fixingOne risk assessment did not reflect a changing need, and another risk assessment and care plan did not clearly explain what staff should do. The records were updated after the inspection.
“Staff had not updated one person's risk assessment to reflect their changing need, and another person's risk assessment and care plan lacked clarity in the actions staff should take.” from the report
Staff response times
minorPeople generally felt there were enough staff, but one person said they sometimes waited a long time for help. Staff said it could be tight when someone was off sick, although management arranged cover.
“I can't get out of bed at the moment and sometimes it is a bit long for [staff] to respond but they come when they can.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorPeople had different opinions about the quality of meals. The chef sought daily feedback and the home catered for different dietary needs.
“The food isn't good, there is a choice but it's very bland and not seasoned well.” from the report
Wayfinding could improve
minorSome signs were provided, but inspectors said more colour and signage would help people find their way around the home.
“However, the service would benefit from the use of colour and additional signage to help people find their way around.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure risk assessments are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 02How long might someone wait for help if staff are busy or someone is off sick?
- 03How do you respond to feedback about the taste and quality of meals?
- 04What changes have been made to colour and signage to help people find their way around?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in care reviews and decisions?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good, as at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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 Longueville Court
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Peterborough
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 £1,370 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I honestly feel lucky to have found her and have already booked her for another visit.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.