CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lowfield house Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, personal protective equipment, testing, safe admissions and visiting. They said records for cleaning high-touch areas could be improved.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Lowfield house Limited: inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, with some cleaning records needing improvement.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2022. Inspectors gave one day's notice. They looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found the home clean and free from odours. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly, testing processes were in place, and visiting arrangements followed government guidance. There were enough staff to provide continuity if there was a staff shortage.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas. It focused on infection control, visiting and staffing pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Infection control
The home had infection control policies and procedures, regular environmental checks and cleaning schedules. Inspectors found the home clean and free from odours.
“The home was clean and odour free. There were designated domestic staff and cleaning schedules were followed.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
There were enough supplies of personal protective equipment. Staff and management were observed using it correctly, with training and reminders available.
“There were enough stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE). We observed staff and management using PPE correctly” from the report
Testing and safe visiting
The home was accessing COVID-19 testing and had clear processes for responding to positive results. Visitors were assessed before entering and could maintain contact with family members.
“Visitor assessments were carried out to consider temperature checks, current health needs, lateral flow test results and COVID-19 symptoms prior to entry to the home.” from the report
Staffing continuity
The provider had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staff pressures. Inspectors found enough staff to provide continuity of support if there was a shortage.
“There were enough staff to provide continuity of support should there be a staff shortage.” from the report
Cleaning records
minorInspectors discussed improving records showing how often high-touch areas were cleaned. The cleaning schedules needed to reflect the required frequency more clearly.
“We discussed how the records relating to regular cleaning of high touch areas could be improved.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the records showing how often high-touch areas are cleaned?
- 02How would you maintain continuity of support if there were COVID-19-related staff shortages?
- 03How do you currently manage testing and respond to positive COVID-19 tests?
- 04What checks and requirements do visitors need to meet before entering the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not assess the other quality areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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, May 2018
Lowfield House Limited was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind care and better management, but safety systems and records still needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 23 and 25 April 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff and managers. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff records, rotas, safety certificates and quality checks.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff were described as patient and respectful. There were enough staff, the home was clean, meals were enjoyed and people could see health professionals when needed. Activities and family contact were supported.
The overall rating was Good. However, Safe was rated Requires Improvement because medicines systems, risk records, accident monitoring and some infection-control work still needed strengthening. Care plans did not always give staff enough detail about people's preferences and needs. The report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection, including in recruitment, training, property maintenance and management checks.
Clean and improved environment
The home was clean and odour free. Cleaning schedules were in use, and equipment and safety systems had been serviced.
“During this inspection we found all areas to be clean and odour free.” from the report
Food and health support
People enjoyed the meals and could choose alternatives. Staff supported people to eat at their own pace and health professionals were involved when needed.
“We observed people being supported and encouraged to eat their meals at their own pace” from the report
Family contact and activities
There were no restrictions on visiting. People had access to activities and were supported to keep relationships with family and links with the local community.
“People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had introduced more checks and ways for people to give their views. Inspectors found improvements in governance since the previous inspection.
“The systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service had improved and were being further developed.” from the report
Safety obstruction
needs fixingA fire exit was obstructed and electrical equipment was being stored and charged in a corridor. The manager dealt with this immediately, and further fire-safety actions were completed after the inspection.
“During the inspection we noted a fire exit was obstructed and electrical equipment was being charged and stored on the corridor.” from the report
Risk and accident monitoring
needs fixingPressure-ulcer assessments were not yet embedded in staff practice. Accident records also needed better analysis to identify patterns and prevent repeat incidents.
“However, the records needed to be further analysed to determine whether there were any patterns or trends” from the report
Medicines information
needs fixingMedicines were given by trained staff and records were generally accurate, but care plans did not explain people's preferences for taking medicines. Body maps were not being used for external medicines.
“We noted there was no information in the care plans about how people preferred to take their medicines and body maps were not used to guide staff with the application of external medicines.” from the report
Personalised care plans
needs fixingInformation about likes, dislikes, preferences and routines was collected but was not always transferred into care plans. Inspectors said staff therefore might not have clear guidance.
“Useful information about people's likes, dislikes, preferences and routines was gathered during the initial assessment but we found this was not always included in the care plans.” from the report
Complaints records
minorPeople said they could raise concerns and that minor issues were dealt with. However, the home did not keep a record of these concerns, making it difficult to identify themes or frequency.
“We noted a record was not maintained of people's concerns; this meant it was difficult to monitor the frequency and theme of people's concerns.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines records, including recording people's preferred way of taking medicines and using body maps for external medicines?
- 02How do you now monitor people's skin condition and identify patterns in falls or other accidents?
- 03What action has been taken in response to the infection-control recommendations, including waste bins, cleaning equipment and infection-control audits?
- 04How are each person's preferences, consent, diversity and end-of-life wishes now recorded and shared with staff?
- 05How are concerns, incidents, safeguarding information and audit findings now recorded and discussed with staff?
This was an inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care provided, and it assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 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 Lowfield house Limited
3 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 April 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
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.