CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lowfield House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were assessed and reviewed. Inspectors found medicines were administered safely, staffing met people's needs and infection control procedures were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and care plans, trained staff and support with food and drink. The home worked with health professionals and followed the Mental Capacity Act and deprivation of liberty requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives gave consistently positive feedback about staff. Inspectors found that staff respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and activities included group and individual interests. Communication needs were recorded, complaints were responded to, and end of life wishes were considered.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, regular checks and systems for monitoring quality and risks. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with well-led management improved since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 06 November 2019. One inspector reviewed care, medicines, staff records and management information. They spoke with one person, relatives and staff, and contacted other professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, supported to make choices, treated with dignity and given personalised care.
Inspectors found detailed care plans, trained staff, safe medicines procedures, suitable food and regular access to health professionals. Activities reflected people's interests, complaints were dealt with, and people and relatives were involved in decisions.
The overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection in April 2017. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff understood safeguarding, and medicines were handled by trained staff using safe procedures.
“Medicines were administered safely by trained and competent staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's individual needs, preferences and desired outcomes. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported.
“Care plans were individual and personalised to the needs and preferences of people.” from the report
Open management
The home had regular monitoring, meetings and surveys. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views, and management used feedback to plan improvements.
“There was a clear vision for the home and an open culture.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan reflects their current physical, mental and social needs?
- 02How will you support my relative to take part in activities and maintain relationships outside the home?
- 03How do you check that medicines continue to be given safely and at the right time?
- 04How will you involve our family in reviews, health care decisions and any best interest decisions?
- 05How are end of life wishes recorded and kept up to date?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care, premises and management, covering all five CQC questions; the report says the previous overall rating was Good, with Well-led improving from Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 November 2019 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, April 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home’s quality checks and care records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 23 March 2017. They observed care, spoke with people using the home, a relative, staff and a healthcare professional, and checked care files, medicines records, staff records, audits and the building.
They found people were safe, received their medicines correctly and were supported by enough suitably recruited staff. Staff were trained, kind and respectful. People received personalised support, help with activities and access to healthcare.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because audits did not always identify when care plans needed updating or did not reflect people's known needs.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found suitable numbers of staff and safe recruitment checks. They also found that medicines were administered and recorded safely.
“People who used the service were supported by suitable numbers of staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's communication, preferences and personal histories. They gave people time, protected their dignity and supported their independence.
“Staff's approach was caring and compassionate; we heard staff providing explanations to people before carrying out tasks and afforded people time to make choices” from the report
Effective support
Staff had relevant training and support. Healthcare professionals' advice was recorded and followed, and people's dietary needs were catered for.
“People who used the service received effective care from a range of healthcare professionals.” from the report
Activities and personal choice
People were supported to take part in activities inside the home and in the local community. They were offered choices about food and how they spent their time.
“People who used the service were supported to take part in a range of activities inside the service and the local community.” from the report
Care plans were not always current
needs fixingA small number of care plans did not accurately describe how people were being supported. The manager said a full review would be carried out.
“However, through our observations of the care and support staff delivered it was apparent that a small number of people's care plans did not accurately reflect the way they were supported.” from the report
Quality audits missed problems
needs fixingCare plan audits did not always identify changes in people's needs or behaviour. The audit system also did not cover every area highlighted by a pharmacy review.
“However, we found evidence that care plan audits failed to identify when care plans did not incorporate people's known behaviours or when the way staff supported people had changed.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans been reviewed so they accurately describe each person's current needs and the way staff support them?
- 02How do you check that care plans are updated when a person's behaviour, health or support needs change?
- 03What changes have been made to the quality audits since inspectors found that they missed some care plan and pharmacy issues?
- 04How will you make sure there are enough staff at different times of day and overnight for the people currently living here?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews and told about changes in their relative's needs?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five questions; the report also says earlier ratings improved from Inadequate in May 2016 and were reviewed at a focused inspection in September 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 2017 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 Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2016Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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 £1,300 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.