CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lychgate 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, May 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but safeguarding, cleanliness and management systems put people at risk.
Inspectors visited on 1, 3 and 8 March 2023 without giving notice. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care files, medicines, recruitment records and management documents.
The home was caring in its day-to-day contact with people. Staff were kind, supported independence, managed medicines safely and helped people stay in touch with relatives and the community. People had access to food, drinks and healthcare.
However, people were not always protected from harm. Safeguarding incidents were not properly reported, some areas were dirty or poorly maintained, and the home's quality checks did not identify or deal with important problems. Care plans were also task focused and did not always use respectful, person-centred language.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2019 to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring remained Good. The provider was required to submit an action plan, and the CQC said it would monitor progress.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were observed treating people with patience, dignity and respect. They knew people well and encouraged independence.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect, staff clearly knew people well, and knew how to engage with them fully.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained, explained medicines and asked for consent before giving them.
“People received their medicines in a safe manner and as prescribed.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were enough to meet people's needs. Staff had induction, training and competency checks.
“There were adequate staffing levels to provide people with care and support and meet their needs.” from the report
Choice and social contact
People could choose food, where to eat and whether to join activities. They were supported to see relatives and access the community.
“People were easily able to maintain relationships with their relatives and loved ones, including going out with them on a regular basis.” from the report
Safeguarding was not reliable
seriousIncidents involving possible abuse were not always identified and reported to the proper authorities. This created a risk that people were not adequately protected.
“We could not be assured people were being adequately safeguarded against the risk of abuse.” from the report
Poor cleanliness and maintenance
seriousSome bathrooms, communal areas and frequently touched surfaces were dirty or poorly maintained. Inspectors said this increased the risk of infection.
“The provider had failed to maintain adequate levels of cleanliness within the service, increasing the risk of infection to people.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not reliably find or fix problems with infection control, the environment, notifications or quality. The service's oversight did not protect people from avoidable risks.
“The systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not effective.” from the report
Care plans were not person-centred
needs fixingCare plans were task focused and sometimes used language that was not respectful or dignified. Reviews were recorded separately rather than updating the main plans.
“Care plans were task focused, and some of the descriptive language used throughout was not always respectful” from the report
End of life wishes were missing
needs fixingThere were no people receiving end of life care during the inspection, but care plans did not record advance decisions or specific wishes for future end of life support.
“We could not be assured that people's wishes would be explored or followed should someone approach the end of their life within the service.” from the report
- 01How are safeguarding incidents now identified, reported to the proper authorities and reviewed?
- 02What cleaning and repair work has been completed since the inspection, and how is it checked now?
- 03How do you make sure audits identify problems and that actions are completed and reviewed?
- 04How will my relative's views, social needs, equality needs and personal preferences be included in their care plan?
- 05How would you record and follow my relative's wishes if they needed end of life care?
This inspection looked at all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, and the ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 2023 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 Lychgate House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 February 2021.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.