CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Loyd House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Loyd House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found problems with medicines, infection control, staff support and management systems.
Inspectors visited unannounced on four days in December 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, friends and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was not always safe or well managed. Medicine instructions and records were incomplete. Infection control practices were not followed consistently. Some staff training and supervision were out of date. These issues increased the risk of harm.
Inspectors also found care could be task focused, with limited meaningful interaction. People's privacy was not always protected, and mealtimes could be chaotic. However, people's care plans were detailed, their needs were generally understood, and the home supported activities, family contact and complaints well.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in April 2018 to Requires Improvement. Responsive care remained Good. The provider must send an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Safeguarding
Staff knew how to recognise abuse and the registered manager had raised concerns appropriately with the local authority and CQC.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support where a higher level of care was required.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans contained information about people's communication, sensory needs and personal preferences. People and families were involved in creating and reviewing them.
“Care plans reflected a good understanding of people's needs, including relevant assessments of people's communication support and sensory needs” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to keep in touch with others, attend day services and take part in activities suited to their interests.
“People were supported to maintain relationships, follow their interests and take part in activities that were relevant to them.” from the report
Health support
Staff noticed changes in people's health and sought advice promptly. The home's multidisciplinary team worked with health professionals.
“Records showed action was taken when people's health or wellbeing deteriorated.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousAs-needed medicine protocols did not always explain when medicines should be given. Cream records were incomplete, and some staff may have carried medicines for more than one person on a tray.
“People were supported to receive their medicines in a way that was not always safe.” from the report
Infection control
seriousStaff did not consistently follow infection control rules. Inspectors saw jewellery and watches being worn, missing protective aprons and gloves not changed between people.
“People were not always protected from the risk of infection as staff were not consistently following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Staff skills and supervision
seriousSome training was out of date and supervision was not consistent. Inspectors observed poor moving and handling techniques when someone slipped down in a chair.
“The provider had failed to ensure staff were suitably trained, skilled, competent and supervised to carry out their duties.” from the report
Limited interaction
needs fixingCare was often focused on completing tasks, with little meaningful time spent with people. Mealtimes were described as functional and sometimes chaotic.
“Staff were often task focused and spent little meaningful time with people.” from the report
Privacy and records
needs fixingFood and fluid information was left in communal areas, putting confidentiality at risk. Other records also lacked important information or were not completed consistently.
“The provider and registered manager had not identified records were left in community areas putting people's confidentiality at risk.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousAudits and management systems did not identify several safety and record-keeping problems. Some staff also did not feel able to raise concerns without fear of repercussions.
“Systems and processes were not sufficient to identify the issues we found during the inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to as-needed medicine protocols, cream records and medicine administration procedures?
- 02How do you check that staff follow infection control rules during personal care and mealtimes?
- 03Which staff training and supervision sessions were overdue, and have they now been completed?
- 04How are you making mealtimes calmer and ensuring staff spend meaningful time interacting with people?
- 05How are audits now checking care records, privacy, rehabilitation plans and other safety risks?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the care provided and the premises; the report says the previous rating was from 17 April 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 2024 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 2018
Loyd House is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and Outstanding leadership.
This was a comprehensive inspection over three days in November 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, audits, complaints and other records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems, personalised care, good support for health and rehabilitation, and people treated with kindness and dignity.
Well-led was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found strong leadership, good teamwork, regular feedback and detailed quality checks. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the October 2016 inspection, and inspectors said those improvements had been maintained.
Personalised support
Care plans focused on each person's choices, identity and preferred routines. Staff knew people's histories, interests and support needs.
“People received a personalised service that was responsive to their individual needs, there was an emphasis on each person's identity, and what was important to them from the moment they moved into the service.” from the report
Strong leadership
Inspectors found committed leadership, an open culture and a clear focus on improving people's care.
“The registered manager and the provider were dynamic and led by example, continually seeking to improve what the service offered to people.” from the report
Specialist staff skills
Staff received training about acquired brain injuries and were supported by a team including therapists and psychologists. This helped people work towards rehabilitation goals.
“Staff had completed comprehensive training on brain injuries, which enabled them to understand the effects of different injuries on the brain.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with patience and compassion. Staff encouraged independence while respecting people's choices.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care.” from the report
People's views mattered
People, relatives and staff could give feedback through meetings, surveys and other routes. Inspectors found that managers acted on comments.
“People and staff were empowered to voice their opinions, and the management always responded to comments put forward.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider and managers carried out regular checks across important areas of the service. Records showed that identified problems were dealt with promptly.
“There were robust quality assurance systems in place, which meant the management team had clear oversight of how the service was meeting people's physical, emotional and social needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and plan care for my relative's particular acquired brain injury, rehabilitation goals and behaviour support needs?
- 02How often do you use agency staff or staff from another service, and how do you ensure they know my relative well?
- 03How will my relative be supported to make choices and communicate if they need information in an easy-read format, another language or another way?
- 04What therapies, activities and opportunities for independence would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you involve our family in care reviews, health decisions, complaints and any changes in my relative's needs?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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 Loyd House
5 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of West Northamptonshire
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 £1,280 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.