CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lyndhurst Lodge Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection control measures were being followed, including safe visiting, use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak management. The home also had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control and staffing during COVID-19 pressures.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, and on whether staffing pressures were affecting care.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks safely. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date and that visits were being supported in line with current guidance.
The home had employed extra permanent staff in case people needed to isolate. It had also created outdoor visiting spaces and provided more activities and social contact when COVID-19 restrictions limited family visits.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections from spreading and was using protective equipment, testing, cleaning and visiting arrangements appropriately.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Staffing support
The home employed extra permanent staff to help maintain people's care if staff had to isolate.
“Extra permanent staff were employed to help ensure people's needs were met if staff needed to isolate.” from the report
Family contact and activities
The home created accessible outdoor spaces for visits and increased one-to-one activities and social contact when restrictions limited family visits.
“When people couldn't see their families, due to COVID-19 restrictions, staff did their best to compensate.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection prevention and control arrangements being maintained now?
- 02What staffing levels are in place, and how would the home cover absences or staff needing to isolate?
- 03How are visits arranged now, including visits for people who need accessible outdoor spaces?
- 04What one-to-one activities and social contact are available for residents today?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating of all five areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 2022 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and effective leadership, with an infection-control issue during medicines administration to address.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 May 2018. One inspector reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines, staff recruitment and training records, and quality checks. They spoke with three people, one relative, managers and three care staff.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, regular staff training and support, personalised care plans, good food and access to healthcare.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care, activities were provided, and complaints were investigated. Inspectors found one medicines infection-control shortfall and noted worn flooring in the dining room. The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the May 2016 inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe, respond promptly and provide conversation and interaction.
“There were enough staff available to make sure people were safe, and to provide interaction and conversation.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, routines, preferences and the specific support they needed. These plans were reviewed to reflect changing needs.
“Care plans and assessments were detailed and personalised.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff gave people time, protected their privacy and supported their independence. People described staff as friendly, helpful and caring.
“We saw staff interacted with people in a friendly, respectful way and gave people the time they required to talk and receive care.” from the report
Food and health support
People were offered choices, alternatives and support with eating where needed. Staff monitored nutrition and worked with healthcare professionals.
“People were supported to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Listening to feedback
The home gathered views through forums, surveys and meetings. Feedback about menus led to changes.
“Recent feedback showed people were happy with their care and had made minor comments regarding suggested improvements to menus.” from the report
Medicines infection control
needs fixingStaff did not always follow infection-control procedures when administering eye drops or touching tablets. The manager said this would be addressed.
“We saw staff did not always follow infection control procedures in administering eye drops and touching tablets with their hands.” from the report
Worn dining-room flooring
minorInspectors found worn flooring in places in the dining room. The provider had already identified this and was planning an upgrade.
“We identified that the flooring in the dining room was worn in places.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after inspectors saw staff touching tablets and giving eye drops without following infection-control procedures?
- 02Has the worn flooring in the dining room now been replaced, and what is the timetable for any remaining building work?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed, and how will my relative and our family be involved in those reviews?
- 04What activities are available for people living with dementia, including when the activity co-ordinator is not present?
- 05How will you make sure there are enough staff at the times when my relative is most likely to need support?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with records and the experiences of people, a relative, managers and care staff reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 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 Lyndhurst Lodge Residential Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Lyndhurst Lodge Residential Home Limited →
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Lyndhurst Lodge Residential Home Limited →
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 May 2013.
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 Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with 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.