CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lyme House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, visiting, protective equipment, testing, admissions, cleaning and the management of possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Lyme House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and pandemic safety arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 October 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found safe visiting arrangements, suitable protective equipment, social distancing, shielding and designated areas for people with COVID-19 symptoms or a positive test. They were assured that people were admitted safely and that testing was available.
Staff had infection control training and regular checks. The home had cleaning schedules, infection control leads and regular updates for people, staff and families.
The home was inspected but not rated overall, and the Safe question was also inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating.
Safe visiting
Visits were limited to essential visitors, arranged in advance and supported by health screening and protective equipment.
“Safe visiting procedures were followed. Visits were restricted to essential visitors only and pre-arranged.” from the report
Protective equipment
The home had enough suitable protective equipment, and staff used and disposed of it correctly.
“There was a good stock of the right PPE and staff used and disposed of it correctly.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had infection control training, regular competency checks and daily updates about current guidance.
“Staff had completed infection prevention and control (IPC) training and underwent regular competency checks to ensure they knew how to keep people and themselves safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Contact with families
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends through telephone and video calls.
“People received the support they needed to stay in touch with family and friends through telephone and video calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control, visiting and testing arrangements are in place now?
- 02How often do staff receive infection prevention and control training and competency checks?
- 03How does the home manage admissions for people who may have an infection?
- 04How are family members kept updated about infection precautions and changes to visiting?
- 05What more recent inspection or assessment information is available, given that this inspection was not rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other key questions or a full overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 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, April 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed support, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 March 2018 and an announced visit on 8 March 2018. Two inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the psychologist and the registered manager. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints and management records.
The home supports up to 21 people with an acquired brain injury. There were 13 people living there during the inspection. Inspectors found good practice in all five areas they assess: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
The previous inspection found problems with medicines and quality checks. The provider had sent an improvement plan. This inspection found that the required improvements had been made. Medicines records were complete, staff were trained and checked as competent, and audits were being used to identify and complete actions.
Medicines management
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and returned appropriately. Records were consistently complete, and staff had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were now ordered, stored, administered and returned in accordance with best practice guidelines.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received a six-week induction, regular training and ongoing support. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs.
“We reviewed staff rosters that demonstrated there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet the needs of the people living at the home.” from the report
Respectful relationships
Staff understood people's individual needs and used calm, informed approaches when people became unsettled. People were offered privacy, choices and support to remain independent.
“We saw many positive interactions between staff and people living at the home throughout our visit.” from the report
Activities and independence
Activities included education, vocational placements, sport and community opportunities. Inspectors saw that activities were also used to build practical life skills.
“Activities were offered for entertainment but also used to develop essential life skills that promoted people's independence.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider had introduced regular audits covering areas such as medicines, care plans, incidents and daily records. Actions from audits were completed promptly.
“Records reviewed demonstrated consistent completion and thorough analysis had been completed following all audits.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently check that medicines are stored, given and recorded safely?
- 02How are each person's rehabilitation goals reviewed, and how will we be told about progress?
- 03How do you make sure staff understand the individual communication and behaviour support needs of someone with an acquired brain injury?
- 04Which education, work, leisure and community activities are available now, and how are they chosen?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or make a complaint, and how will the outcome be shared with us?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, carried out to check improvements after breaches found at the April 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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 Lyme House
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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 St. Helens
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.