CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lucton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place, including safe admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Lucton House was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3rd December 2020. It looked at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning, the building layout and managing outbreaks. The home used screening, temperature checks, zone signs and separate areas for putting on and removing protective equipment.
People had self-contained apartments, which gave them space during isolation. Staff supported people with activities and contact, and charts were used to monitor food and drink when communal dining areas were closed.
The overall service and the Safe question were marked inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care.
Infection controls
The home had measures for screening visitors, using protective equipment safely, social distancing, testing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home used screening and temperature checks for visitors. Window and garden visits were offered when possible.
“Visitors to the home undertook screening questions and had their temperatures taken on arrival.” from the report
Support during isolation
People had self-contained apartments, and staff used activities and conversations to support people's wellbeing when communal areas were closed.
“People living at Lucton House had their own self contained apartment equipped with lounge, small kitchen, en suite bathroom and bedroom” from the report
Food and drink monitoring
Charts were introduced to monitor people's nutritional intake during isolation or when communal dining areas were closed.
“To ensure people were eating and drinking enough during periods of isolation and where communal dining areas were closed, charts to monitor people's nutritional intake were implemented” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened, and what visiting arrangements are available?
- 02How do you provide and monitor protective equipment, staff testing and infection control now?
- 03What happens if there is an infection outbreak, and how are people supported during isolation?
- 04How do staff monitor people's food and drink intake when communal dining is not available?
- 05What activities and contact with relatives are available to support people's wellbeing during restrictions?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, recorded under Safe; it did not rate the overall service or assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 2020 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, November 2018
Lucton House rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but responsive care required improvement.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 25 July 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care records, staff recruitment files and the home's quality and safety systems.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, effective, caring and well-led care were rated Good. Inspectors found that staffing, medicines, risk management, staff support, food, healthcare, kindness, privacy and people's involvement in decisions had improved.
Responsive care was rated Requires Improvement. Care plans did not always contain people's current needs and preferences, and some people did not have enough suitable activities. The home had plans to improve this, including recruiting another activity coordinator.
At the previous inspection in August 2017, there had been three legal breaches about leadership, person-centred care and notifications to the CQC. Inspectors found these breaches had been met at this inspection.
Safer risk management
Staff understood people's risks and how to respond. Incidents were reviewed and action was taken, such as referrals to a falls clinic and providing safety equipment.
“People's risks were managed safely. Staff were aware of people's individual needs and how to help keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm relationships and patient support. People were involved in decisions, and staff promoted privacy, dignity and independence.
“We saw kind and caring interactions from staff and good rapport between people and staff.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had addressed the legal breaches found in August 2017. Staffing, safeguarding, care planning, leadership and quality monitoring had improved.
“At this inspection, we found improvements had been made and the provider had met the previous breaches of the regulations.” from the report
People's choices and healthcare
People were supported to make choices about their care, food and treatment. Staff helped people access healthcare when needed.
“People were supported to make decisions about their care.” from the report
Care plans were not always current
needs fixingSome care plans did not fully describe people's current needs and preferences. Staff knew some information in practice, but clearer written guidance was needed.
“The registered manager confirmed people's care plans still did not always reflect their current needs and preferences and further improvements were ongoing.” from the report
Limited activities for some people
needs fixingSome people did not have good access to activities, and inspectors saw a group of people sitting without interaction or activity. An activity coordinator had left shortly before the inspection.
“Although people had enjoyed some calendar events and group activities at the home, we found some people did not have good access to activities at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01How are care plans checked and updated so they reflect each person's current needs, preferences and ways of communicating pain?
- 02What activities are available for people who do not enjoy group activities?
- 03Has another activity coordinator been recruited since the previous coordinator left?
- 04What changes have been made since the inspection in July 2018 under the new registered manager?
- 05How do you use people's and relatives' feedback to improve activities and care?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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 Lucton House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 May 2017.
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 Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.