CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lostock Grove Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. They found effective procedures for visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and infection outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Lostock Grove Rest Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 April 2021. It looked at how well the home was preventing and controlling infection during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found that staff followed infection control procedures. Visitors were screened, PPE was available and used properly, testing was in place, and the home was clean and well ventilated.
The home had a separate room for safer visits. New residents were admitted after a negative COVID-19 test and supported to self-isolate for up to 14 days.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated judgement for Safe.
Infection control procedures
The home had infection prevention procedures that staff understood and followed. Its policies had also been updated, including a business continuity plan.
“The registered manager had established effective infection prevention and control procedures which were understood and followed by the staff.” from the report
Safer visits
A separate room with outside access had been created to support visits while reducing infection risks.
“A new room had been built on the home, to facilitate visits in a safe way.” from the report
PPE and testing
There were plentiful PPE supplies, regular COVID-19 testing and training in infection control. Inspectors observed staff using PPE appropriately.
“There were plentiful supplies of PPE and stocks were carefully monitored.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with enhanced cleaning and good ventilation.
“The premises had a good level of cleanliness and was hygienic throughout.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the home's current overall CQC rating, given that this inspection was not rated?
- 02How have visitor screening, PPE and COVID-19 testing arrangements changed since the inspection on 27 April 2021?
- 03How are new residents currently tested and supported during any period of self-isolation?
- 04Is the separate visiting room still available, and what visiting arrangements are now in place?
- 05How does the home currently manage infection outbreaks and staff shortages?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe only; the other key questions and an overall rating were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 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, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some minor improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 August 2018. Inspectors reviewed records, observed care and spoke with people living at the home, visitors and staff. They also checked staff recruitment and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were now stored, given and recorded safely. This resolved the safe-care breach found at the previous inspection in September 2015.
People said they felt safe and liked the staff. Inspectors saw kind and respectful care, suitable care plans, enough staff and effective checks on quality and safety. They noted some minor improvements, including clearer signs for people living with dementia and more accessible information for people with poor vision.
Medicines managed safely
The previous inspection found problems with medicines records and management. Inspectors found these issues had been addressed, with staff training, competency checks and regular audits in place.
“Medication was stored, administered and recorded safely. Spot checks and audits routinely took place on medications” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and visitors spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed caring interactions and saw staff protecting people's privacy, dignity and choices.
“We observed kind, caring and compassionate interactions between staff and people who lived at the home.” from the report
Care based on individual needs
Care plans included people's clinical needs, preferences, backgrounds and interests. Referrals to health professionals were made when needed.
“Care plans contained information with regards to people's clinical need and how they needed support” from the report
Good oversight
The home used meetings, feedback and audits to check how it was operating. Action plans were made when improvements were identified.
“Quality assurance systems were effective and measured service provision.” from the report
More dementia-friendly signs needed
minorInspectors said people living with dementia would benefit from clearer directions and stronger contrast between walls and floors. The manager said this work was ongoing.
“We saw that further adaptions would be beneficial for people living with dementia, such as more directional signage, and contrasting walls and floors” from the report
Information was not fully accessible
minorSome people with poor vision needed information in another format. Inspectors found that there was limited accessible information and discussed this with the manager.
“However, we saw that some people had problems with their vision, and would benefit from information being presented to them in another way” from the report
One care plan was unsigned
minorMost care plans showed people's involvement or used a best-interest process. One care plan was not signed, and this was raised during the inspection.
“One care plan we viewed was not signed, so we raised this with the registered manager at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to improve directional signs and contrast for people living with dementia?
- 02How will information be provided to residents who have poor vision?
- 03How do you make sure every care plan is signed or records the correct best-interest process?
- 04How often are medicines audited, and how are any problems found in those audits dealt with?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and giving feedback?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and checking whether the medication problems found in September 2015 had been resolved. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 2018 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 Lostock Grove Rest Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 December 2010.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.