CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lyndhurst Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and safe medicines management. Risks were assessed, accidents were reviewed and action had reduced falls at night.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had appropriate training and supervision. People were supported with food, health care, exercise, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People told inspectors staff were kind and caring. Staff supported dignity, privacy, independence and people's personal beliefs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's choices and preferences in detail. People had access to activities, visitors and support to maintain relationships and interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular checks and audits, an open culture and systems for acting on feedback and complaints. The registered manager had plans for further improvement.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvement since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced inspection over 1 and 2 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with seven people, six relatives and seven staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and management information.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable care planning, kind staff and activities that reflected people's interests.
The previous inspection had rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach about staff recruitment. The home had completed an action plan, and inspectors found that improvements had been made. The breach no longer applied.
Safety and risk management
Risks were assessed and staff had guidance on how to reduce them. The home increased night staffing and changed its approach after falls increased, which reduced further falls.
“Records showed this had been effective in reducing the number of falls.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors observed staff offering reassurance and supporting people with dignity and independence.
“People told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed information about people's routines, personal care, preferences and choice of carers. People and families were involved where possible.
“Care plans contained detailed information about people's choices and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities such as singing, knitting, bingo and gardening. Relatives could visit at any time and people were supported to continue routines outside the home.
“People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Improvement and oversight
The home had improved from the previous Requires Improvement rating. Audits and action plans were used to identify and address shortfalls.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation.” from the report
Some people felt rushed during washing
minorQuality surveys found that some people sometimes felt rushed when washing. The home changed staff allocations, and later feedback about the changes was positive.
“However, people expressed they felt rushed when washing, at times.” from the report
- 01How do you check that people are not rushed during washing and personal care?
- 02How do you decide how many staff are needed on each shift, including at night?
- 03How are people's care plans reviewed when their choices, health or routines change?
- 04How do you check that staff remain competent to give medicines safely?
- 05What further improvements are included in the current action plan?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, following the previous Requires Improvement rating and recruitment breach. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 October 2019 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, October 2018
Previously Inadequate and in special measures, the home is now rated Requires Improvement, but recruitment checks were not safe.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 7 September 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, medicines, a meal and activities. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, risk assessments and quality audits.
The home had improved significantly since its previous inspection in March 2018, when it was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures. Medicines were now managed safely. Staffing levels met people's needs, risks were better assessed, and care plans were more personal and up to date.
There were still important weaknesses. Recruitment checks were not consistently safe. Food and drink monitoring records were not always completed in a consistent way. Training and new quality checks needed more time to become fully established.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in special measures.
Safer medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, recorded and given safely. This was a clear improvement from the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and medicines were now safely managed.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels matched people's assessed needs during the inspection. People and relatives said waiting times and staffing had improved.
“During the inspection staffing levels matched the number of staff on the duty rota and there were enough staff available to meet people's individual needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and dignified care
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, respect and compassion. Inspectors saw positive interactions and people appeared comfortable with staff.
“Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personal care plans
The new electronic system helped make care plans clearer, more detailed and more personal. Plans included people's histories, preferences, risks and support needs.
“Along with the new system, people's care plans had been reviewed and now contained clear, specific guidance for staff.” from the report
Activities and choice
People helped shape a varied programme of activities. The report describes physical, creative, social and gardening activities.
“The social activity programme had been built on ideas and suggestions from people and included a variety of physical, mentally stimulating and holistic activities.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousFour staff files were checked and each had gaps in work history that had not been reviewed. References were not always verified and one file had only one employment reference.
“In each case we found that the provider had failed to review gaps in work history.” from the report
Food and drink records
needs fixingStaff recorded food and drink intake, but not consistently. This could make it harder to monitor whether people were getting enough nutrition and fluids.
“Although these were being completed, staff were not completing them consistently with the same information.” from the report
Systems still being established
needs fixingTraining and quality audits had improved, but inspectors said they needed more time to become fully effective and sustained. The audits had not found the recruitment problems.
“However, they had not identified the shortfalls in recruitment files.” from the report
- 01Have all staff recruitment files now had gaps in work history reviewed and all references properly verified?
- 02How do you check that food and drink monitoring charts are completed fully and consistently on every shift?
- 03What further training are staff receiving, and how do you check that their skills remain effective in practice?
- 04How do your quality audits now identify recruitment, nutrition and other safety shortfalls?
- 05What improvements have been completed since the September 2018 inspection, and what remains outstanding?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with care, medicines, activities, records, staff files and the premises checked. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 October 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 Rest Home
5 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.