CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 1 Lanark Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, risk management, infection control and medicines were found to be safe, although more guidance was needed for staff about some medical conditions.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff were trained and health needs were supported. Inspectors found some gaps in care plan reviews and said oral health plans needed development.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described warm and friendly relationships with staff. People were treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to develop independent living skills.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was based on people's individual needs, communication styles and interests. People could choose activities, spend time in the community and have quiet time if they wished.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management and culture. Inspectors found that audits and the system for gathering and analysing feedback needed to be more robust.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council - 1 Lanark Close is rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but some records and quality checks needed strengthening.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 02 December 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home provided residential personal care for up to 16 people with learning disabilities. It was operating with 13 beds for short breaks and a crisis bed, and six people were using it during the inspection. People and relatives spoke very positively about the care, staff relationships and opportunities to build independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safe medicines practice, suitable staffing, good support for health needs, respectful care and strong person-centred support. They also found some gaps in care plan reviews, oral health plans, medical condition guidance and the strength of quality audits.
The previous overall rating was Outstanding, published in June 2017. Caring, Responsive and Well-led changed from Outstanding to Good at this inspection. Good means the service was consistently managed and provided good care, but was not judged exceptional overall.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described strong relationships with staff. Inspectors found that staff were compassionate, respectful and patient when people were distressed.
“They were caring and compassionate.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were managed safely, with staff training and regular checks of competence. The medicine records inspected were complete.
“Medicine records were completed fully without errors or unexplained gaps.” from the report
Building independence
Staff supported people to learn everyday skills and work towards greater independence. Short breaks also gave people opportunities to enjoy activities and develop confidence.
“People were supported to maintain and develop their independent living skills.” from the report
Choice and community life
People could choose how to spend their time, including hobbies, social activities and outings. Staff supported people to take part in local community events.
“People were free to determine how they spent their time whilst having their short break.” from the report
Medical condition guidance
needs fixingInspectors found that staff needed some additional guidance about the medical conditions affecting some people. The manager said this would be actioned.
“We identified some additional guidance was needed for staff about the medical conditions some people were living with.” from the report
Care plan reviews
needs fixingSome reviews of support plans had not been completed. The manager said this was linked to staff absence and had been addressed.
“However, we did identify some gaps in reviews.” from the report
Oral health plans
needs fixingPeople's oral health plans needed more development. The manager told inspectors this would be addressed.
“People's oral health plans required development.” from the report
Quality audits
needs fixingThe home carried out checks, but inspectors said the auditing arrangements, including at provider level, needed to be more robust. The systems were due to be reviewed.
“We found auditing schedules and processes needed to be more robust, including at provider level.” from the report
- 01What additional guidance is now available to staff about the medical conditions of people using the home?
- 02How do you make sure every person's support plan is reviewed on time?
- 03What changes have been made to people's oral health plans?
- 04How have the home's audits been strengthened since this inspection, including checks by the provider?
- 05How will you measure whether the service remains person-centred after the ratings fell from Outstanding to Good in three areas?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, premises, medicines, staffing, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 2020 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, June 2017
Outstanding overall; inspectors found exceptionally caring, responsive and well-led support, with safe and effective care rated Good.
Inspectors visited on three days. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people using the service, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and service records.
This is a 12-bed home providing short breaks, transitional support and crisis stays for around 77 people a year who have a learning disability. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk plans and clean, recently refurbished premises.
People were supported to make choices, build friendships and learn skills. Staff knew people well and adapted support to their communication, health and emotional needs. The home also offered activities, links with health professionals and support meetings for relatives.
The overall rating was Outstanding. Caring, responsive and well-led were rated Outstanding. Safe and effective were rated Good, and these ratings remained Good.
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found that staff were trained to handle medicines and that the medicine records checked were complete. Staffing levels were adjusted to the number and needs of people staying.
“People's medicines were managed safely. Staff received training to handle medicines, and the medicine administration records (MARs) we reviewed were correctly completed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff took time with people and understood their different ways of communicating. They supported people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“Staff interacted with people in a way which was particularly knowledgeable, kind, compassionate and caring.” from the report
Personalised short breaks
The home planned stays around people's interests, friendships, skills and goals. People could choose activities and were supported to try new experiences.
“The service demonstrated they were innovative in devising a unique short-stay service specifically tailored to meet the needs of people who were living with a learning disability.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess my relative's communication, emotional, health and support needs before their first stay?
- 02How quickly could you offer a crisis stay, and what support would be available if my relative became distressed?
- 03How are preferred dates managed, and what happens if we need to change a booking or request extra dates?
- 04How would you support my relative to choose activities and develop the specific skills or goals that matter to them?
- 05If my relative may lack capacity to consent to a stay, how would you explain and review the DoLS arrangements?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with an unannounced first day and announced later days to meet more people and attend a relatives meeting. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of 1 Lanark Close
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 March 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
45 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockton-on-Tees
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 £1,190 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.