CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lound Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, PPE, testing, admissions, visiting arrangements and vaccination checks were being managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for family visits.
This was a targeted inspection on 26 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care. It was announced 21 hours beforehand.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well ventilated. They were assured that personal protective equipment, testing, shielding, social distancing and infection outbreak arrangements were being managed safely.
People were supported to keep in contact with relatives. The home also kept records of COVID-19 vaccinations for people, staff and visiting professionals, in line with the guidance described in the report.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall rating or ratings for most of the five key questions.
Clean environment
The home was visibly clean and well ventilated during the inspection.
“The service was visibly clean and well ventilated.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements for PPE, testing, social distancing and managing possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Family visits
People were supported to keep in contact with relatives and other important people in their lives.
“People were being supported to receive visits from their relatives.” from the report
Vaccination records
The home kept records of vaccinations for people and staff, and checked vaccination status for visiting professionals.
“There was a robust system in place to record vaccinations received by people using the service and staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place to manage COVID-19 related staffing pressures, and have these affected people's care?
- 02How are staff and residents currently tested for COVID-19?
- 03How can relatives visit, and what happens if there is an infection outbreak?
- 04How are PPE use and infection control checks monitored now?
- 05How are vaccination records and exemptions for staff and visiting professionals kept up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not provide a full service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 2022 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, December 2018
Lound Hall was rated Good overall, with major improvements after earlier Inadequate inspections, although some care records and monitoring still needed work.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection over two visits. They spoke with people, relatives, staff, a visiting health professional and managers. They also observed care and reviewed care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, cleanliness and the premises were managed safely. People received suitable support with food, drink, health needs and daily choices.
Inspectors found kind and respectful care, support for independence, personalised activities and better involvement in care planning. The management team had introduced stronger checks and acted on earlier failings. Some care records still needed more detail about people's preferences and life histories, and further analysis of repositioning records was needed.
Staffing and continuity
There were enough staff, and recruitment of more permanent staff had reduced reliance on agency workers. This gave people more continuity of care.
“The service had been successful in recruiting more permanent staff which meant the use of agency staff was reduced and there was a better continuity of care for people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff showed genuine interest in people's wellbeing and spent time talking with them or supporting their interests. People were encouraged to do what they could for themselves.
“We observed many genuinely kind interactions between people using the service and staff.” from the report
Activities and choice
The range of activities had improved and was changed in response to people's suggestions. Activities were also offered to people who preferred to stay in their bedrooms.
“Significant improvements had been made to the provision of meaningful activities in the service.” from the report
Stronger management checks
The management team had introduced more robust quality checks and acted on problems. People and relatives could give feedback through meetings and surveys.
“Quality assurance systems had been further developed so that shortfalls were identified more promptly and that robust action was taken to address them.” from the report
Care records needed more personal detail
needs fixingAlthough care plans had improved, inspectors said some still needed more information about people's specific likes, dislikes and preferences. More detailed life histories were also planned for people living with dementia.
“Some improvements are still required to further personalise care records to include people's preferences and to include life histories for those living with dementia.” from the report
Repositioning records were not fully analysed
needs fixingThe electronic system could alert managers when repositioning was not recorded, but the home still needed a system to check whether people were consistently repositioned at the required frequency.
“Some further improvements were required to implement a system to analyse repositioning records to see whether staff consistently repositioned people at the frequency specified in their care plans.” from the report
- 01How do you now record each person's likes, dislikes, preferences and life history, especially for people living with dementia?
- 02How do managers check that people are repositioned as often as their care plan requires?
- 03What changes have been made since the earlier inspections that rated the service Inadequate?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels and the use of permanent staff remain suitable for people's needs?
- 05How are people's suggestions about activities and trips recorded and acted on?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall service and all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 December 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 Lound Hall
5 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2018Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 2016.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.