CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lorenzo Drive
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found medication records that did not always meet the provider's own standards. They also found concerns about thickening agents and the storage of a controlled drug.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's assessed needs and choices. Staff had appropriate skills and training, and people received support from health and therapy professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood people's communication needs, identities, preferences and family relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were highly individualised and included people's wishes, goals and choices. People were supported to improve their quality of life, develop skills and take part in activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The service had a settled staff and therapy team, with managers who were described as open and supportive. Quality checks were in place, although medication audits needed to improve.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised rehabilitation, but rated Safe Requires Improvement because medicines arrangements were not always secure.
This was the first CQC inspection since the home registered in August 2018. It was an announced, planned comprehensive inspection over 25 and 26 March 2019. The inspector spoke with people, staff and professionals, and checked care records, medicines, training and safety records.
People described feeling safe, listened to and well supported. Inspectors found kind staff, individual rehabilitation plans and specialist therapy. People were supported to make choices, build confidence, access the community and develop new skills.
The main problems were with medicines. Some records were confusing or incomplete, thickening agents were not managed safely enough, and suitable storage for a controlled drug was not yet available. These issues led to a Requires Improvement rating for Safe, while the other four areas were rated Good.
Personalised rehabilitation
Inspectors found focused rehabilitation programmes based on people's involvement and goals. People had made progress, including gaining confidence, accessing the community and developing new skills.
“Everyone being supported received care and support that was personalised to their individual needs, wishes and aspirations.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw warm relationships and found that people were treated with dignity and respect.
“People were treated with kindness and were positive about the caring attitudes of staff.” from the report
Communication and choice
Staff adapted communication to individual needs and supported people to express their wishes. People were involved in their care and daily lives.
“Technology and a flexible approach by staff was used to fully support people to communicate their care needs, preferences and choices” from the report
Skilled support
Staff knew people's needs and received training relevant to brain injury support and their roles. Specialist therapy was available, including physiotherapy and psychological therapy.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled and carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Safe environment and staffing
Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff and a clean, well-maintained environment. Individual risks were assessed and managed.
“We found the environment safe and well maintained.” from the report
Medication records
seriousSome medication records contained anomalies, including an incorrectly recorded fortnightly medicine. Handwritten records did not always have a second staff signature, creating possible risk and confusion.
“There were recording anomalies on Medication Administration Records [MAR] charts which could cause some confusion and possible risk” from the report
Thickening agents
seriousStorage and recording of thickening agents for a person with swallowing difficulties needed improvement. The manager said the policy and staff awareness would be reviewed.
“We found the storage and recording of thickening agents on medication records could be improved.” from the report
Controlled-drug storage
seriousThere was no suitable storage facility for controlled drugs, even though one medicine being monitored required this type of storage. The manager said a suitable cupboard would be planned.
“There was currently no storage facility for Controlled Drugs [CD's].” from the report
Medication audits
needs fixingThe medication audit did not monitor all the issues inspectors identified. The manager agreed that monitoring needed to be improved.
“The medication audit was discussed and needed to be further improved to ensure improved monitoring.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medication administration records since the inspection?
- 02How are handwritten medication entries checked and signed by a second member of staff?
- 03How are thickening agents stored, recorded and checked for people with swallowing difficulties?
- 04Has suitable controlled-drug storage now been installed?
- 05How often are medication audits completed, and what do they now check?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection of the care home, including the premises and care, and of personal care and support in the supported living accommodation, but not the supported living premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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 Lorenzo Drive
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 December 2017.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Liverpool
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. 83 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“All in all Kama b cared for the owner really well, every aspect of her care was of the highest standard.”
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.