CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lonnen Grove
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found detailed and regularly reviewed risk plans, enough staff, safe recruitment, secure medicines systems and appropriate infection control. One person reported feeling unsafe because of incidents involving another person, but inspectors found the provider was taking action.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not reviewed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found robust audits, clear action plans, supportive management and an open, person-centred culture. The home sought feedback and worked with other agencies.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Lonnen Grove was rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, but examined concerns about how incidents were managed.
This was a focused inspection prompted by concerns about whether incidents were being managed safely. The inspector visited on 27 May 2021, spoke with people, a relative and staff, observed the home, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found detailed risk plans, safe medicines systems, enough staff, safe recruitment and appropriate infection control measures. They also found that safeguarding concerns were reported and acted on appropriately.
Some staff had contacted CQC about how incidents had been managed, and one person said incidents had made them feel unsafe. Inspectors found the home was taking action and managing these incidents as effectively as possible.
The overall rating remained Good because the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. The last rating, published in March 2020, was also Good.
Risk planning
Each person's care record contained detailed risk plans. These were regularly reviewed and updated when people's needs changed.
“There were risk management plans in each person's care record, reflecting all the risks that a person may present or be vulnerable to.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and checked through regular audits. Staff showed good knowledge of the medicines systems.
“Medicines, and records of medicines, were audited frequently to ensure any shortfalls were identified.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support where required. Background checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff deployed to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Management oversight
The home had regular audits and action plans to identify and address improvements. Staff understood their roles and managers understood their legal and regulatory responsibilities.
“There was a system of regular audits, both of individual aspects of the service as well as an overall quality audit; action plans were developed from these which contributed to continuous learning and improvement.” from the report
Person-centred culture
Inspectors found that people's choices and independence were upheld. The culture was described as empowering and inclusive.
“People's choice and independence were upheld; care was person-centred and the culture of the home was empowering and inclusive.” from the report
Incidents making someone feel unsafe
needs fixingOne person described incidents involving another person that made them feel unsafe. Inspectors found records showing that the home was taking action, but this is an issue to discuss with the home.
“One person using the service told us about incidents that had occurred which made them feel unsafe, but records we checked showed the provider was managing these incidents as effectively as possible.” from the report
- 01How do you currently manage incidents that may make someone feel unsafe?
- 02How are families informed after a safeguarding concern or serious incident?
- 03What changes have been made as a result of the incidents raised with CQC?
- 04How do you check that risk plans remain accurate when a person's needs change?
- 05How can residents, relatives and staff raise concerns and see what action has followed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 August 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 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with further end-of-life training being planned.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 24 February 2020. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with six people, five relatives and seven staff. They also reviewed care records 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, detailed risk assessments and staff who understood people's needs.
People were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities they enjoyed. Care plans covered communication, healthcare, food, personal care and daily routines. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the home and its management.
The rating was unchanged from the previous Good rating, published on 26 September 2017. The report identified that staff needed further end-of-life care training, although the home had recognised this and was looking for training.
Enough, consistent staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People said staff were consistent and understood them well.
“People told us they were supported by consistent staff, who understood their needs well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered individual routines, preferences, communication and daily activities. People were supported to make choices and become more independent.
“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
People and relatives gave positive feedback. Inspectors observed staff speaking warmly and respectfully and respecting people's privacy and dignity.
“We found staff spoke to people with warmth and respect, and staff considered people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Clean and safe environment
The core home and separate house were very clean. Staff had infection-control training and access to protective equipment.
“Both the core home and the separate house were exceptionally clean.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff said managers were approachable and concerns were dealt with. The home used surveys, meetings and quality checks to make improvements.
“There was an open and transparent culture within the service.” from the report
End-of-life training
needs fixingThe manager and training officer recognised that staff needed more training in end-of-life care. They were looking for an independent provider to deliver it.
“The providers training officer and registered manager had recognised staff needed further training in end of life care, so they were prepared if this was needed.” from the report
Request for more male staff
minorOne person said they wanted more male staff for some activities. The manager said they would discuss this with the person and look for a solution.
“There's not enough male staff. I'd like to have more male staff as there are things [activities] I prefer to do with male staff.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the further end-of-life care training identified in the report?
- 02How would you support my relative if they preferred care or activities with male staff?
- 03How would you adapt communication for my relative, including the use of pictures, easy-read information, signing or Makaton if needed?
- 04What activities and community opportunities could you offer based on my relative's interests and goals?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in reviewing care plans and making decisions?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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 Lonnen Grove
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.