CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Lynmere Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff managed medicines safely and there were enough staff, although inspectors found some small gaps in monitoring charts.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on people's needs and choices. Staff had training and supervision, people received support with food and drink, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and involved them in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. The home supported communication, family relationships and activities, including one-to-one time for people who stayed in their rooms.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and positive culture, with approachable management and good links with other professionals. Audits had not identified some minor errors in care and medicines records.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Lynmere Nursing Home is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
Inspectors visited the home unannounced on 16, 17 and 18 October 2023. They spoke with 9 people, 4 relatives and 7 staff. They also reviewed care, medicine and staff records, as well as management information.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good medicine management, suitable training and positive support from health professionals.
People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors saw caring interactions, personalised care, good food choices and activities for people both in shared areas and in their rooms.
There were some small gaps in monitoring charts and minor errors in care and medicines records. End of life care plans could also be more personal. The manager took immediate action on some record-keeping issues, and inspectors found no evidence that these shortfalls had affected people's care.
Safe medicines support
Trained staff managed medicines safely and people received them as prescribed.
“Medicines were managed safely by trained staff and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors saw many kind and caring interactions.
“People were cared for by caring, respectful, and attentive staff who knew people well.” from the report
Personalised food and drink
People had choices about meals and where to eat. Kitchen staff understood individual dietary needs and preferences.
“People were supported to have a healthy and nutritious diet and were fully involved in deciding menus around their individual preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home welcomed relatives, friends and pets. It provided group activities, entertainment and individual sessions for people who preferred to stay in their rooms.
“Group activities and outside entertainment were regularly provided.” from the report
Gaps in monitoring charts
needs fixingInspectors found some small gaps in records used to monitor areas such as fluid intake and repositioning. This was reported to the manager.
“We found some small gaps in monitoring charts, and we reported this to the registered manager.” from the report
Record-keeping errors
needs fixingAudits had not identified some minor errors in care and medicines documentation. The manager took immediate action with staff, and inspectors found no evidence that care had been affected.
“We found minor recording errors in care and medicines documentation that had not been identified in audits.” from the report
End of life plans
minorSome end of life plans were in place, but inspectors said they could describe people's individual wishes more clearly.
“Some people had end of life care plans in place; however, we fed back that these could be more person centred.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to make sure fluid intake and repositioning charts are completed every time?
- 02How do you now check medicines records and care records for errors that audits might miss?
- 03How will you record my relative's individual wishes and preferences for end of life care?
- 04How will you provide activities and social contact if my relative spends most of their time in their room?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in changes to their care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous Good ratings from 2017 were reviewed and all remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some improvements needed to medicines guidance, call-bell monitoring and care-plan reviews.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 November 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with nine people, four relatives and seven staff, and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, caring staff, personalised care plans, suitable activities and effective management systems.
There were some shortfalls. The home did not have written guidance for staff about when to give medicines needed only sometimes. Care-plan reviews did not always clearly show people's involvement, and the call-bell system could not record response times.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff providing care calmly and without rushing. People's privacy, dignity, choices and personal preferences were respected.
“Staff were kind, respectful and spoke with people considerately.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans gave staff clear information about individual needs, routines and preferences. They were reviewed and updated when circumstances changed.
“Each person had a care plan that was tailored to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and a suitable mix of skills and experience. Recruitment files included references and DBS checks.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
Two activity coordinators arranged group and one-to-one activities. Visitors were welcome, and staff supported people's personal relationships.
“Activities were provided for people on a one to one basis in their rooms.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and approachable. Audits, meetings and feedback systems were used to monitor the home and support improvement.
“There was a range of audits in place to monitor the quality of the service and make improvements where needed.” from the report
Medicines needed only sometimes
needs fixingWritten instructions were missing for medicines given only when needed. Inspectors said this could increase the risk of people not receiving them consistently.
“The lack of PRN protocols would increase the risk that people would not receive medicines as they needed them consistently.” from the report
Care-plan review records
needs fixingPeople were involved in care planning where possible, but this involvement was not always clearly evidenced in the records.
“People's involvement in this process needed to be more evident.” from the report
People at risk of isolation
minorSome people stayed in their rooms or were confined to bed because of their health needs. The home provided one-to-one activities, but inspectors noted a risk of isolation for people who did not join organised activities.
“Some people chose not to take part in organised activities and therefore could be at risk of becoming isolated.” from the report
- 01What written protocols are now in place for medicines that are given only when needed, and how are they checked?
- 02How do you record and review call-bell response times, including at weekends?
- 03How do people and their families take part in care-plan reviews, and where is this recorded?
- 04How do you provide regular social contact and one-to-one activities for people who stay in their rooms or cannot join group activities?
- 05What changes followed the October 2017 feedback survey?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, with the previous Good rating from November 2014 reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 December 2017 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 Lynmere Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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 Stockport
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.