CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lulworth House Dementia Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Environmental risks, staffing, medicines and infection control were managed well, although some risk information was not recorded consistently.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on people's needs and choices. Staff had relevant training, people received support with eating and drinking and healthcare, and the Mental Capacity Act requirements were being met.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were offered choices, involved in decisions about their care and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences. Activities were varied and reviewed, communication needs were recorded and end of life support was planned with families and other services.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager promoted an open and supportive culture, but quality assurance checks had not identified gaps in risk assessment reviews and recruitment records. Inspectors said management and leadership were inconsistent.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but leadership and record checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 January 2020. Two inspectors spoke with six people, the manager and six staff members. They reviewed care, medicine and recruitment records, quality checks and training information. They also spoke with relatives after the visit.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, kind care, suitable activities and support that was tailored to people's dementia needs. People were supported with food, healthcare, choices, privacy and dignity.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Quality checks had not always found missing or inconsistent risk assessments and gaps in recruitment records. The manager acted immediately when inspectors raised these issues. The overall rating remained Good, but the inspection found that leadership and oversight were not consistently strong.
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered by trained staff and records were accurate and up to date. Storage and temperature checks were also managed safely.
“Staff maintained accurate and up-to-date medication administration records (MARs).” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed people being treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and respect which we observed throughout the inspection.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home offered activities linked to people's interests and reviewed them when they were not working well. This included one-to-one support and ways to reduce social isolation.
“There was a wide range of person- centred and meaningful activities available at the service.” from the report
Support with food and drink
People could choose meals and where to eat. A nutrition and hydration coordinator helped people be more independent and monitored risks such as weight loss.
“People were given a choice of meals and were able to choose where they would like to eat.” from the report
Risk records were not consistent
needs fixingSome risk assessments were not reviewed or clearly linked to the actions staff needed to take. This meant the provider could not always be sure staff had the right written guidance.
“Care plan audits had not identified that people's risk assessments were not always reviewed monthly or actioned.” from the report
Recruitment records had gaps
needs fixingSome employment histories and reasons for leaving previous care roles had not been fully checked or explained. The manager took immediate steps to correct the records, and staff were supervised while checks were completed.
“Gaps in employment history were not always explained and reason for leaving previous care role was not always verified.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every person's risk assessment is reviewed monthly and updated after a change in need?
- 02What checks are now completed on employment gaps and reasons for leaving previous care jobs?
- 03How will you monitor whether the improvements to leadership and quality checks are working?
- 04How are activities reviewed for each person, including people who prefer to spend time in their room?
- 05How will you keep families informed about care changes, medicines and end of life planning?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with checks of care, medicines, recruitment, training and quality monitoring records. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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, July 2017
Lulworth House Dementia Residential Care Home was rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsiveness and highly personalised care.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 18 and 26 May 2017. Inspectors spoke with 15 people living in the home, 12 relatives, seven staff and four health professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines, complaints, incidents, audits and training records.
The home was rated Good for safety, effectiveness, caring and leadership. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. People received suitable food, health support and care from trained staff who respected their dignity and choices.
The home was rated Outstanding for responsiveness. Inspectors found very personalised care, detailed activities based on people's interests, strong involvement of people and relatives, and creative work to support wellbeing. The overall Good rating means the home met the CQC standards inspected, with particularly strong findings about responding to people's individual needs.
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and used their preferences, routines and life histories to shape care and conversations.
“People received care and support in a personalised way. Staff knew people well, understood their needs and supported people to achieve a sense of self-worth and well-being.” from the report
Activities and wellbeing
The home offered varied activities inside the home and in the community, with options based on individual interests.
“Activities for people were innovative, activities and events were well thought through and varied. These were specific to people's likes and interests.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed calm, friendly interactions. People were supported with privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“During the inspection we observed interactions between staff and people who used the service. There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere; we saw staff interacting with people in a very caring and friendly way.” from the report
Safe care
Risks, accidents, medicines, staffing and the premises were monitored. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“Risks to people's safety had been assessed and measures put into place to manage any hazards identified.” from the report
Strong involvement
People and relatives were invited to meetings, contribute ideas and take part in care plan reviews. The home acted on suggestions.
“People and their relatives were actively encouraged to give their views and raise any concerns or complaints.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and record my relative's personal routines, interests, likes and dislikes?
- 02Which activities would suit my relative, and how would you adapt them if their health or dementia needs changed?
- 03How do you review staffing levels and make sure staff know my relative's care needs?
- 04How will my relative and our family be involved in creating and reviewing the care plan?
- 05How do you support people's nutrition, hydration and changing health needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in March 2015 had rated every area Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 July 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 Lulworth House Dementia Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Lulworth House Dementia Residential Care Home →
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Lulworth House Dementia Residential Care Home →
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.