CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lorne House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, safeguarding arrangements, safe recruitment checks, medicine systems and infection-control measures were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed for their roles. People's dietary, healthcare, communication and accessibility needs were assessed and supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and positive interactions. People were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and encouraged to be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, histories and support needs. People were supported with activities, communication and relationships, although end-of-life wishes were not formally recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team promoted an open culture and used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor and improve care. Staff and relatives felt able to share their views.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but end-of-life wishes were not formally recorded.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 August 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, suitable training, detailed risk plans and personalised care.
People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to make everyday choices. They had activities, help to access healthcare and information in ways they could understand. The home had remained Good since the previous inspection, published in February 2017.
The main shortfall was that people's end-of-life preferences had been discussed informally but were not written in their care plans. The home said this would be addressed as a priority. The home was also larger than current best practice guidance, although inspectors said the design and location reduced any negative impact.
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences and individual support needs. People and relatives were involved in reviews.
“People had individualised care plans that supported a person-centred approach.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday decisions, take positive risks and do as much as possible for themselves.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Kind and knowledgeable staff
The staff team was stable and knew people's needs well. Inspectors saw positive interactions and people described staff as kind.
“People were confident and relaxed in their interactions with staff.” from the report
Quality oversight
The provider and manager used audits, meetings and feedback to check the quality of care and identify improvements.
“The management team completed a range of quality audits to ensure they provided the best outcomes for people they supported.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingPeople's preferences had been discussed but were not formally written in their care plans. The home said this would be addressed as a priority.
“Although people's preferences and choices regarding their end of life care, had been informally explored there was no formal recording in people's care plans.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home supported eight people and was registered for nine. Inspectors noted that this was larger than current best practice guidance, although they said the design and location reduced the impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How are each person's end-of-life wishes now recorded, reviewed and shared with the people who need to know?
- 02How are staffing levels decided according to the needs and risks of the people living here?
- 03How are people supported to take positive risks while remaining safe and independent?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs, preferences or health changes?
- 05How do you provide activities and communication support that match each person's interests and way of understanding information?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided; the ratings were compared with the previous inspection published on 22 February 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Lorne House was rated Good and remained Good, with inspectors finding safe, kind and personalised care.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 10 January 2017. The inspector observed care, spoke with people, staff, the registered manager, the provider and the local GP, and reviewed care records, medicines information, recruitment checks and other documents.
There were nine people living at the home, which can support up to nine people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff understood their health needs, medicines were handled appropriately and staff had suitable training and checks.
People were treated with respect and supported to make choices, stay independent and keep important relationships. Their care plans were updated as their needs changed, and people could raise concerns with the registered manager.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection too, so the report says it remained Good.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and staff knew how to respond to risks such as seizures. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“People told us they felt safe at the home because they regarded the staff as their friends.” from the report
Kind and individual care
Staff understood people's communication, preferences and need for independence. People were supported to make daily choices and maintain important relationships.
“Staff understood how each person chose to communicate.” from the report
Care adapted to changing needs
Care plans were reviewed when people's mobility, hearing, dietary or other needs changed. Equipment and support were provided where needed.
“People's care was routinely reviewed and updated to reflect any changes in their personal circumstances.” from the report
Accessible management
People and staff said the registered manager listened and was approachable. Staff were involved in decisions about people's care.
“Staff described the registered manager as approachable and helpful.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current position of the applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations mentioned in the report?
- 02How will staff receive ongoing training on the Mental Capacity Act and supporting people to make decisions?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will changes in their needs be communicated to all staff?
- 04How will you support my relative to take medicines in the way they prefer, including any wish to manage their own medicines?
- 05What activities and community links are available that match my relative's interests and relationships?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 2017 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 Lorne House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2013.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.