CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lyndhurst
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe and staff understood safeguarding. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, fire safety and infection control were found to be managed safely, although some risk records lacked detail or had not been recently updated.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed, staff received training and support, and people had access to healthcare. Staff supported people with food, decision-making and their mental and physical health.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so the report gives no current rating for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so the report gives no current rating for Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a positive culture and an approachable manager, but audits had not identified missing relapse indicators and incomplete or poorly reviewed risk assessments. Inspectors also found a lack of provider support and oversight.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe and effective care, but leadership and checks on risks needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced. One inspector and one nurse visited on 7 December 2022. They spoke with three people, the manager and staff, observed care, and checked care records, staff records and management documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Effective. People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels had increased, and people could access healthcare and make choices about their care.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Some risk assessments and relapse indicators were missing or out of date. The provider's checks had not found these problems. The home corrected the record-keeping issues immediately after the visit, and inspectors said people were not at risk of harm.
The overall rating remained Good. This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led. The previous overall rating was Good, published on 9 November 2021.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and looked after. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe and looked after by the staff.” from the report
Trained staff and safe medicines
Staff received regular training and competency checks before giving medicines. Recruitment checks were completed and staffing levels had recently increased.
“Staff were unable to administer medicines unless they were trained to do so.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make decisions, stay as independent as possible and live in the least restrictive way. People were involved in care planning and the refurbishment.
“Staff empowered people to make their own decisions about their care wherever possible.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People were supported to attend health checks and use primary care, community mental health and other specialist services when needed.
“People had access to health professionals as required.” from the report
Positive culture
People and staff said the manager was approachable. Staff felt able to raise concerns and suggest improvements.
“The management team and staff were motivated to provide the best possible person-centred care and support for people.” from the report
Risk records were incomplete
seriousSome records did not explain clearly how to manage risks such as diabetes and choking. Relapse triggers were not always recorded, and some documents were not recently updated. The home addressed these issues immediately after the inspection.
“Some of records lacked specific detail on how to mitigate and manage risks to people and had not been recently updated..” from the report
Management checks missed problems
needs fixingAudits had not identified the missing risk information and relapse indicators. Inspectors also found that provider support and oversight were lacking.
“Auditing systems to monitor the provision of the care being delivered were not always effective” from the report
- 01Have all risk assessments been updated, especially for choking, diabetes and relapse triggers?
- 02How do you now check that care records contain enough detail for staff to manage each person's risks?
- 03What provider oversight is now in place to make sure audits identify problems promptly?
- 04How are staff supported to recognise and respond to each person's relapse indicators?
- 05What current feedback is available from people and relatives about the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, and the report says ratings from the previous inspection were used where needed for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 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.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with a temporary manager still in post.
Inspectors visited on 12 March 2021. They spoke with managers, staff and six people by telephone. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records, infection control information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and received good care. Staff assessed risks, managed medicines safely, supported healthcare appointments and used infection control measures well during the Covid-19 pandemic.
There was a positive, person-centred culture. People were supported to make choices and staff were described as supportive. The home had a temporary manager and was recruiting a registered manager.
This was a focused inspection. It did not assess Caring or Responsive, so those areas do not have new ratings in this report. The overall Good rating and the three inspected ratings remained the same as at the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and received good care. Staff understood safeguarding and the risks faced by individuals.
“People told us that they were safe and received good care and support.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely. Staff needed training and competency checks before administering them.
“Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medication when they should.” from the report
Infection control
The home increased cleaning, had suitable protective equipment and staff followed infection control procedures during the pandemic.
“At this inspection we found that the home was managing infection prevention and control well especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Staff supported people to make choices and recorded best-interest decisions when needed.
“People were given choice about how they liked their care and treatment to be given and we observed staff gave people choice.” from the report
Registered manager not yet appointed
minorA temporary manager was running the home while recruitment for a registered manager continued. Staff also referred to problems with the previous manager, although they expressed confidence in the current team.
“The service had a temporary manager in post and were actively recruiting to the post of registered manager who would be registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01Who is the registered manager now, and what arrangements are in place if the temporary manager leaves?
- 02What were the issues with the previous manager, and how have they been addressed?
- 03How are staff training and competency checks kept up to date, given that most staff had completed the mandatory training?
- 04How will you assess and respond to my relative's personal risks, such as risks involving medicines, smoking or self-harm?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in care reviews, meetings and setting new goals?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not assessed, and the report says the inspection was mindful of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 2021 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
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnet
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“The quality of life that she's given my parents has been priceless. The peace of mind she's given my sisters and I, through a very difficult time, has been invaluable.”
“Folasade is really kind, patient and respectful, has a fantastic sense of humour and such a positive outlook on 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.