CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lound Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found improved staffing, safe care and stronger management after the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 16 May 2023. Inspectors spoke with 11 people living at the home, two visiting family members and six staff. They reviewed medicines, four care plans, training records, audits and other documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff on the day, safe medicines management, improved risk assessments and suitable infection control arrangements. People said they felt safe and were happy with the care.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in July 2022. The provider had completed an action plan, and the home was no longer in breach of the regulations previously identified.
Improved staffing
The home had improved staffing and used people's individual needs to decide how many staff were needed on each shift.
“Staffing had improved significantly at this inspection. The registered manager demonstrated how they looked at people's individual needs to establish how many staff were required on each shift.” from the report
Safe risk management
Risks linked to people's health, the building and fire safety were identified and managed. Care plans were in place for individual risks.
“Risks associated with the environment and with people's individual needs were identified, monitored, assessed, managed, and mitigated well.” from the report
Medicines support
Inspectors observed a medicines round and found medicines were managed safely. People were asked whether they wanted prescribed medicines to be given when needed.
“I don't need to worry about taking my tablets. They look after them for me.” from the report
Stronger management
The new registered manager had introduced clearer processes, regular audits and checks, and improvements to people's experience, including dining.
“Audits and quality monitoring checks were now being carried out regularly with any issues identified and actioned.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you work out the staffing needed for my relative's individual needs on each shift?
- 02What refurbishment work is still taking place, and how could it affect my relative's room or daily routine?
- 03How will you monitor and manage any risks linked to my relative's health, eating, weight or mobility?
- 04How will you make sure medicines prescribed for use when needed are offered appropriately?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection, and what has changed in those areas since then?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 2023 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, July 2022
Lound Hall: Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found staffing and management gaps that increased risk, although medicines and infection control were handled safely.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited the home and spoke with people, staff and relatives. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staffing information and quality checks.
There were not always enough staff, especially at busy times. Some environmental and personal risks had not been identified or managed. The home had no registered manager, and important checks and audits had not been kept up to date.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe remained Requires Improvement. Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Inspectors found people were supported with medicines, infection control and safeguarding, but the service breached rules about staffing and good governance.
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given, managed and disposed of safely. One missing instruction for an as-needed medicine was put in place during the inspection.
“Medicines were stored, administered, managed and disposed of safely.” from the report
Infection control
The inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention arrangements, including PPE, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Safeguarding
People felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse. The home was also working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
“People felt safe living at the home and relatives told us they believed staff kept their loved ones safe.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The provider had completed the required checks before employing staff, including references and DBS checks.
“Staff had been recruited safely and the provider had completed all required pre-employment checks such as seeking references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousInspectors, staff and relatives reported that there were not always enough staff, particularly at mealtimes. The provider could not show a completed assessment of the staffing needed for people's individual needs.
“The provider was unable to show us a completed dependency tool based on people's individual needs and the one provided indicated they were below the suggested staffing hours.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThere was no manager in post. Audits and quality checks had stopped or were overdue, so some problems with risks and maintenance were not found by the home.
“Audits and quality monitoring processes had not been carried out since the previous manager had left, some had not been carried for longer than that.” from the report
Unmanaged safety risks
needs fixingInspectors found a very hot radiator without a cover, a bathroom without a call bell and maintenance checks that had not been completed for more than six weeks. The provider said these issues were addressed after they were raised.
“Maintenance checks had not been carried out regularly for over six weeks, these including checking water temperatures and flushing of water outlets to manage the risk of water borne diseases such as legionella.” from the report
Less personalised care
needs fixingStaff said they did not have enough time to talk with people. Inspectors saw people left in communal areas without staff interaction for more than 15 minutes.
“We observed people left in communal areas, for over 15 minutes with no staff interaction.” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorRelatives said they had not been invited to meetings or feedback surveys. Some also found it difficult to contact the home by phone.
“There had not been any resident or relative meetings and relatives told us they had not been invited to complete any form of feedback surveys.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now working on each shift, especially at mealtimes, and how is this matched to residents' individual needs?
- 02Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and when will a registered manager be in post?
- 03How are you checking that risks, maintenance and emergency information such as personal evacuation plans are up to date?
- 04What audits are now being completed, including checks on call bell response times and pressure-relieving mattresses?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, give feedback and contact the home if the telephone is not answered?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were not inspected during this visit and were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 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.
Every inspection of Lound Hall
8 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.