CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lynncare 2000 Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were managed safely. They also found that improvements had been made to environmental, fire and individual risk arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found better oversight, audits and staff support. Management systems had improved and the earlier breach of Regulation 17 had been resolved.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Lynncare 2000 Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe care, supportive staff and improved management systems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. One inspector visited the home, and an Expert by Experience contacted relatives. Inspectors spoke with a person living there, a relative and four staff members. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was supporting seven people with learning disabilities and could support up to eight. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staffing was sufficient and infection control arrangements were safe. People appeared happy and were supported by staff who knew them well.
Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. These ratings improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The earlier breach of Regulation 17 had been addressed, and the home was no longer in breach.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed. Staff were trained and checked as competent, and the registered manager worked with the local pharmacist on audits.
“Medicines were administered and managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Enough trained staff
There were enough staff to meet people's needs and support activities in the community. Recruitment checks and induction were completed safely.
“There were enough staff to meet the needs of people living in the home and ensure they could spend time completing activities of their choice in the community such as attending college.” from the report
People knew staff well
Inspectors observed people who appeared happy and comfortable. Staff understood people's needs, preferences and communication methods.
“People were happy and comfortable in the home, and we observed they trusted staff and knew them well.” from the report
Improved management
The home had better systems for checking care, medicines and safety. Staff had supervision and team meetings where learning and improvements could be discussed.
“The provider had good oversight of the service. They had systems and processes in place which identified when improvements were needed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now check that the improvements to environmental, fire and individual risk assessments are being maintained?
- 02How often are medicines audited, and what happens if an error or concern is found?
- 03How will you support my relative to take part in activities of their choice in the community?
- 04How do you use communication aids, such as symbols and pictures, to involve my relative in decisions and feedback?
- 05How do you monitor care records, staff supervision and team learning now that the previous Regulation 17 breach has been resolved?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 April 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, October 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks, medicines management and management oversight needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6 and 7 September 2022. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was supporting seven people with learning disabilities. People were described as happy and received personalised care from staff who knew them well. Staff were recruited safely and understood people's needs.
Inspectors found risks that had not been properly identified or managed. These included a rotten decking area, incomplete risk assessments, medicines records that were not always signed, medicines cupboard access and staff not wearing masks when prompted.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The home took immediate action on some issues, but the provider was required to submit an action plan and CQC said it would continue to monitor progress.
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, rights and communication needs.
“People received personalised care from staff who knew them well and ensured their rights and dignity were promoted and protected.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The staff files checked showed that recruitment included references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“Staff were recruited safely. This included asking for references and completing checks with the Disclosure and Barring Service.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act processes
Inspectors found that the home was working within the Mental Capacity Act and that required legal authorisations were in place.
“We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place” from the report
Medicines access and records
seriousThe medicines cupboard key was left where people could access it. Some creams were not dated after opening, and staff had not always signed medicines records.
“This meant anyone including people living in the home could access the cupboard and medicines which had not been prescribed for them.” from the report
Risk assessments and the environment
seriousA rotten decking area created a risk of injury. Some personal risk assessments did not explain clearly enough how risks, including bed rails, should be managed.
“Some areas of the environment had been poorly maintained. This related specifically to an area of decking leading to the garden area which was rotten” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits and other checks had not found important safety and medicines problems. This resulted in a breach of Regulation 17.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed, however service oversight and governance systems were not effective.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured that staff were using protective equipment safely. Staff were not wearing masks when inspectors arrived and needed prompting.
“We were not fully assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Activities and communication
minorRelatives said there could be more activities and better communication. Staffing shortages and funding levels were reported as affecting these areas.
“Relatives stated they thought more activities could be available but understood this was linked to the amount of funding the home received” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure medicines cupboard keys are kept securely and all medicines records are signed?
- 02How have personal risk assessments been rewritten, especially those covering bed rails and lone working at night?
- 03What checks now make sure environmental hazards, such as the decking, are found and repaired promptly?
- 04How are staff being monitored to make sure they use PPE correctly?
- 05What is the current plan for improving individual activities and communication with relatives?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were not inspected and the previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 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.
Every inspection of Lynncare 2000 Limited
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 August 2011.
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 Solihull
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 £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 9 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.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.