CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Lynton Terrace
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- The inspectors found infection control, environmental risks and medicine storage were not always safe. Residents received their medicines as prescribed, but some medicine management systems were unsafe.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Care planning, staff training, food support and healthcare links were positive. However, the building and equipment were not always clean, suitable or properly maintained.
- Caring?
- Good
- Residents had good relationships with staff and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care and daily life.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and based on residents' needs and preferences. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication and developing independent living skills.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a positive culture and approachable interim management. However, audits and quality checks did not always identify problems or lead to timely action.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but safety, maintenance and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 October 2023. Two inspectors spoke with six residents and three support workers, observed care, checked medicines and inspected the building, equipment and records.
Residents were happy and said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were kind and respectful. Care was personalised, people were supported to build independence, and they had access to healthcare and activities.
The inspectors found important safety problems. Some areas and equipment were not clean or well maintained. Some medicines were not stored safely, and risks such as unlocked chemicals and delayed disposal of used sharps were not managed properly.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection, published in 2017.
Kind and respectful care
Residents said they liked the staff and felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors observed kind, caring and polite interactions.
“We observed interactions between staff and the people they were supporting. These were kind, caring and polite.” from the report
Personalised support
Residents were involved in planning their care and setting goals. Staff supported them to improve their mental health and develop independence.
“People received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences.” from the report
Good healthcare links
Staff worked with health professionals and responded appropriately when residents' health changed.
“There was good communication between these professionals, staff and the people being cared for.” from the report
Activities and independence
Residents could take part in activities, learn practical skills and join events outside the home.
“People were supported to choose and take part in special events outside of the home including day trips to places of interest.” from the report
Poor cleaning and infection control
seriousInspectors found dirty bathrooms, kitchen areas and shared spaces. Some equipment was stained or grimy, and staff did not always remove gloves after completing tasks.
“Throughout the service we found the environment and equipment were not sufficiently cleaned.” from the report
Unsafe medicines storage and records
seriousOne medicine cabinet was unlocked and others did not close properly. A controlled drug had remained at the home and records for controlled drugs were incomplete.
“Medicines were not always stored in a safe way.” from the report
Environmental risks
seriousCleaning products and paint were left in unlocked areas. Used sharps had not been disposed of promptly.
“Throughout the building, we found chemicals, such as cleaning products and paint, in unlocked areas and corridors.” from the report
Repairs and maintenance
needs fixingSome bedrooms, furniture and equipment were damaged. Inspectors found a broken bed, damaged walls and carpet, and other items that were not properly maintained.
“People's bedrooms and furniture was not well maintained.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home carried out audits, but these did not always identify risks. Action was not always taken quickly when concerns were found.
“When concerns had been identified, the response to mitigate these and improve the quality of the service had not always been timely.” from the report
Vacancies and temporary staff
minorThere were staff vacancies and the provider relied on temporary workers. Staff said this created some pressure because temporary workers did not always know the home, although familiar temporary staff were sought.
“The staff told us this meant they felt some pressure because temporary staff did not always know the service.” from the report
- 01What has been done to clean the bathrooms, kitchen areas, furniture and equipment, and how is this checked now?
- 02How are all medicines, including controlled drugs, stored, recorded and checked?
- 03What repairs have been completed, including the broken bed, damaged bedroom areas and bathroom equipment?
- 04How are chemicals and used sharps kept secure and disposed of promptly?
- 05How is the home making sure temporary staff know residents' needs and the home's procedures?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, medicines, infection control, the environment, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly suitable infection controls, but raised concerns about kitchen cleanliness, food labelling and staffing pressures.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 15 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention, visiting arrangements and the effect of staffing pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The home had cleaning arrangements, protective equipment, testing and COVID-19 care plans. Staff understood their infection-control duties. Visitors could see people safely by taking COVID-19 tests and wearing protective equipment.
Inspectors found dirty kitchen cupboards and food that was out of date or not labelled with opening dates. The provider responded by putting in place stronger cleaning schedules and said staff would help people label food.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for most of the five areas CQC usually considers.
Infection-control training
Staff had training and understood their responsibilities for protecting people from infection.
“Staff received training and understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe from infection.” from the report
Safe visiting
The provider had arrangements to help people keep in touch with family and friends while reducing infection risks.
“The provider supported people to stay in touch with family and friends in a safe way.” from the report
Individual COVID-19 planning
Each person had a care plan and risk assessment covering their needs and infection-related safety.
“Each person using the service had a COVID-19 care plan and risk assessment in place.” from the report
Links with professionals
The provider worked with healthcare professionals and the local authority to develop its approach.
“The provider worked closely with healthcare professionals and the local authority to learn and develop best practice.” from the report
Kitchen cleanliness
needs fixingInspectors found dirty kitchen cupboards with food residue. The provider introduced more robust cleaning schedules after the inspection feedback.
“We were not always assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
Food storage and labelling
needs fixingSome food in the fridge was two days out of date, and some opened food did not show when it had been opened.
“We also found some food items in the fridge were two days out of date, and some open food items did not have a date of opening on them.” from the report
Recruitment difficulties
needs fixingThe provider reported staffing issues and difficulty recruiting new staff. Recruitment was still under way during the inspection.
“They told us they had experienced staffing issues and had difficulties recruiting new staff.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to the kitchen cleaning schedule after the inspection, and how are they checked now?
- 02How do staff check that food is within date and that opened, frozen and defrosted food is labelled?
- 03How did the reported recruitment difficulties affect staffing levels and people’s support?
- 04When were the other areas of care, such as caring, responsive and well-led, last assessed?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; it did not rate the overall service or the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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.
Every inspection of Lynton Terrace
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- November 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 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 Ealing
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. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.