CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lynden Hill Clinic
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Lynden Hill Clinic: Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was a targeted inspection on 25 August 2020 during the coronavirus pandemic. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures, including visitors, cleaning, personal protective equipment, testing and admissions.
Inspectors found strong arrangements for visitors, including booking visits, symptom checks, hand hygiene and outdoor visiting areas. The home was clean, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces and disinfection of rooms after rehabilitation.
The home had systems for coronavirus testing, staff risk assessments, social distancing and the safe use of protective equipment. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full overall rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Controlled visiting
Visits were booked and managed to reduce contact between visitors, residents and staff. Visiting areas were cleaned between visits.
“Information was readily accessible on arrival and before visits, to ensure visitors followed infection prevention and control guidance.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors saw the home being cleaned during the visit. There were schedules for more frequent cleaning of high-touch areas.
“The home was very clean and hygienic.” from the report
Testing and safer admissions
People were tested before admission, and staff had recently received negative test results. Weekly staff testing was being introduced.
“The service ensured people had tested negative for coronavirus by the hospital and from the community before the service agreed to admit them.” from the report
Protective equipment
The home had designated areas for putting on and removing protective equipment. Inspectors observed staff using it in line with guidance.
“There were designated areas for donning and doffing PPE, and we observed staff putting on and taking off PPE in accordance with guidance.” from the report
Risk assessments still being developed
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to further develop risk assessments for staff at greater risk from coronavirus.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to continue to develop their approach to carrying out risk assessments for all of their workforce they have identified are at greater risk of coronavirus.” from the report
- 01How are you now carrying out risk assessments for staff identified as being at greater risk from coronavirus?
- 02How often are high-touch areas such as door handles and light switches cleaned?
- 03How are visits currently booked, checked and managed to reduce infection risks?
- 04What testing arrangements are currently in place for residents and staff?
- 05What infection control arrangements are used if someone needs to self-isolate?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four key questions or give a full service rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 September 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, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective care improved since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 7 November 2018. They spoke with people, staff and managers, observed care and reviewed care plans, staff records and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were handled safely and there were enough staff.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. Staff supported people's choices, health, therapies, food and drink needs. Care was personalised, complaints were acted on and quality checks were in place.
The overall rating stayed Good. Effective care improved from Requires Improvement in 2016 because staff had since completed Mental Capacity Act training. End of life care was not inspected because the home did not provide it.
Safe care
Risks such as falls and problems with mobility were assessed and managed. Medicines were given by trained staff whose competence was checked regularly.
“Risks to people in relation to their personal care, health, mobility and risk of falls had been assessed with them, and people had risk assessments in place.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with warmth and compassion. Staff explained care, respected privacy and worked at each person's pace.
“Staff were warm and respectful when speaking with people. Staff explained what they were doing and why.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included individual choices, including food and therapies. The home adapted support for communication, cultural and religious needs.
“The records we looked at were person centred and people's individual needs were being met.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used feedback, audits, incident reviews and staff supervision to monitor the service and identify improvements.
“There were processes in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Limited admission scope
minorThe home did not accept people who lacked capacity to consent to their care. This could matter if your relative's ability to make decisions changes.
“The clinic did not accept people who lacked capacity.” from the report
No end of life care
minorThe home did not provide end of life care, and inspectors did not assess this area. Ask what arrangements would apply if your relative became seriously ill.
“The provider did not offer end of life care so we could not inspect this area.” from the report
- 01Would my relative meet the home's admission criteria if they need help making decisions or their mental capacity changes?
- 02How would you respond if my relative's care needs changed during a respite or rehabilitation stay?
- 03What arrangements would you make if my relative needed end of life care?
- 04How will you manage my relative's individual falls, mobility, medicines and therapy needs?
- 05How can my relative or family raise a concern, and how will you keep us informed about the response?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; end of life care was not inspected because the home did not provide it, and the report used a shorter format because the overall rating had not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 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 Lynden Hill Clinic
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 2010.
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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.