CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Low Lane House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk assessment, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control arrangements. They found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concerns that had prompted the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices and preferences were assessed and recorded. Staff training and support were monitored, and people were supported with food, drink, healthcare and appointments.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found quality monitoring systems, an action plan and an open approach to identified improvements. The home did not have a registered manager at the time, but a new manager had been appointed.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective care and improving leadership, but communication and the lack of a registered manager need attention.
The home supports up to six young adults with a learning disability and/or autism. There were six people living there when inspectors visited on 13 July and 1 August 2023. One inspector spoke with staff and relatives and reviewed care and safety records.
Inspectors found that people were supported by staff who understood their needs. Risks were assessed, staffing levels met people's planned support hours, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were suitable. Care was personalised and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led. All three areas were rated Good. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement after the home made and sustained the necessary improvements. Caring and Responsive were not examined during this inspection, so their previous ratings carried over.
Safe staffing
Staffing levels were sufficient to provide the planned support. This helped people take part in activities at home and in the community.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's identified hours of support.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's communication needs, preferences and how to support them during distress. Their rooms reflected their wishes.
“Rooms were personalised in line with people's wishes.” from the report
Staff support
Staff received training and regular supervision. They said management listened to and supported them.
“Staff told us they felt listened to and supported by the management team.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were supported to access healthcare, including preparation for appointments where needed. Their nutrition, hydration and oral health needs were also supported.
“Adjustments were made to ensure people were able to attend their appointments.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingRelatives were positive about the care but said communication could be better. The provider acknowledged this and said it would seek to improve it.
“Relatives spoke positively about the care and support their loved ones received. They told us communication could be improved.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. A new manager had been appointed and was applying to register, but the report notes that having a registered manager is a condition of registration.
“The home currently did not have a registered manager which is a condition of registration.” from the report
- 01How will you improve communication with relatives, and how often will families receive updates?
- 02When is the new manager expected to complete their application to register?
- 03How do you check that medicines continue to be managed safely?
- 04How are staffing levels matched to each person's identified support hours?
- 05How do you review whether the improvements in management and governance have been sustained?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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, June 2022
Low Lane House was rated Requires Improvement, after improving from Inadequate and leaving Special Measures, but inspectors still found inconsistent risk records, infection control and management checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training information and management records.
The home had improved since its last inspection, when it was rated Inadequate and had six breaches of regulations. People were described as receiving kind care, having choices and being supported with their independence. Medicines were managed safely and the environment was clean and more suited to people's preferences.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that some systems were still not consistent enough. Risk records and care plans were not always updated when people's needs changed. Some staff supervision and training were overdue, infection control procedures were not always followed, and management checks needed to happen more often.
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their rooms, activities, meals and communal areas. Staff supported their goals and encouraged people to make their own decisions.
“People had choice in all aspects of their lives, such as how to spend their time, activities they wanted to participate in within the community” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff understood people's individual communication needs and treated people with kindness, privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely. Staff also followed guidance intended to avoid excessive use of medicines.
“People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to administer, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
Improved environment
The home had been redecorated and improved. People could personalise their rooms and use quiet and sensory areas.
“The overall quality of the environment had been improved and reflected people's preferences; it was clean throughout.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had made enough progress for the previous breaches to be closed. The home was no longer rated Inadequate or placed in Special Measures.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Risk records
needs fixingRisk assessments and care records were not routinely updated when people's needs changed. Some risk scores did not reflect the actual risks.
“Records to oversee people's risks needed further development. They were not routinely updated when changes occurred.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingSome staff were not bare below the elbow during visits, and visitor procedures were not always followed.
“Some staff were not bare below the elbow during our visits to the service. Procedures in place for visitors were not always followed.” from the report
Staff supervision and training
needs fixingTraining was generally relevant, but not all training was current. Staff did not receive supervision and appraisal consistently.
“Staff needed to receive more consistent support in the form of continual supervision and appraisal.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingGovernance procedures had identified areas needing improvement, but checks were not completed often enough to keep people safe and hold staff to account.
“They needed to be completed more frequently to be effective and to hold staff to account, keep people safe, protect people's rights” from the report
- 01How often are risk assessments and care plans now reviewed when a person's needs or behaviour changes?
- 02What checks make sure staff follow bare-below-the-elbow and visitor infection control procedures every time?
- 03Which staff training is still overdue, and when will all staff receive regular supervision and appraisal?
- 04How are you monitoring the reduction of restrictive interventions, and when will the related support plans be reviewed?
- 05How often are governance checks now completed, and how do you make sure identified actions are completed?
This was a focused inspection covering Safe, Effective and Well-led, including previous Warning Notices and infection control; Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 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 Low Lane House
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2022Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2021Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 August 2018.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Middlesbrough
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 £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.