Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at The Lakes Care Centre

Goodpublished 17 April 2018, 8 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures. They checked visitor controls, PPE, testing, isolation, cleaning and outbreak arrangements.
Effective?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Caring?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Responsive?
Good
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2020

Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.

This was an announced, targeted inspection on 6 November 2020. It looked specifically at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus risks.

Inspectors found the home clean and free from unpleasant smells. They saw cleaning taking place and found cleaning schedules, protective equipment stations, visitor checks, testing and isolation arrangements.

The home had suitable infection control policies and signs about staying safe. Inspectors were assured across the infection control areas they checked, but they did not give an overall quality rating.

What inspectors praised
  • Visitor safety checks

    Visitors were supported to use PPE and follow infection control procedures. Staff also checked for coronavirus symptoms and took visitors' temperatures.

    “When visitors came to the home, a designated member of staff supported the visitors to ensure they followed safe infection control processes” from the report
  • Testing and isolation

    New admissions were tested and asked to self-isolate for 14 days. Staff and residents were tested regularly in line with the approach described in the report.

    “All people being admitted to the home were tested for COVID-19 by the care staff on admission.” from the report
  • Policies and guidance

    The home had infection control policies based on current government guidance, with signs around the home explaining the safety measures.

    “The service had appropriate infection control policies and procedures in place.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Were the planned visiting pods with Perspex screens installed, and how are visits arranged now?
  2. 02How often are residents and staff tested now, and what happens after a positive result?
  3. 03How is the 14-day self-isolation period managed for new residents?
  4. 04How often are communal areas and bedrooms cleaned, and can families see the cleaning schedule?
  5. 05How would the home use the currently unused unit if residents needed to isolate during an outbreak?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not assess the other four questions or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, April 2018

Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, but the home’s leadership improvements needed to be sustained.

This was an unannounced inspection on 8 and 9 February 2018. It was the home’s first inspection since registering with the CQC in March 2017. Inspectors responded to concerns about risks, staffing and management.

The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received their medicines safely, had enough staff and were supported with food, health needs, activities and personal choices.

Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. New managers had made important changes after a period of inconsistent management. Inspectors found strong leadership at the time of the visit, but wanted to see the improvements maintained before giving a Good rating for leadership.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors saw staff support people patiently and compassionately. People’s privacy, dignity, choices and personal preferences were respected.

    “People's care was delivered with kindness and compassion.” from the report
  • Improved safety

    The home had improved its systems for medicines and risk management. Staff understood people’s individual risks and how to reduce them.

    “There were arrangements in place to keep people safe and to protect them from harm.” from the report
  • Activities and social life

    People were offered different activities, including group sessions, exercise, baking and one-to-one support. Activities were arranged at different times, including some evenings and weekends.

    “People were supported to take part in activities which they enjoyed and which supported their social inclusion.” from the report
  • Better management response

    New managers had listened to people, relatives and staff and were using feedback and audits to make changes. Relatives said communication and reassurance had improved.

    “The new managers have changed things for the better and now the home is starting to be everything we hoped it would be when we chose it” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Leadership needed to prove it could last

    needs fixing

    The home had lacked consistent management since opening. New managers had made improvements, but inspectors wanted evidence that these changes would be sustained.

    “The service was well-led but the improvements made needed to be sustained and further developed.” from the report
  • Some staff training was incomplete

    minor

    Not all staff had completed the training expected by the provider. Managers had arranged training and provided interim support while staff waited for it.

    “The training and support which had been provided to staff had been reviewed by the deputy manager.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Who is the registered manager now, and how has the management structure changed since February 2018?
  2. 02How do you currently check that medicines are administered correctly and that medicine records are complete?
  3. 03Have all staff completed the training required for their roles, including safeguarding and dementia care?
  4. 04How do you check that staffing levels are enough at busy times and that call bells are answered promptly?
  5. 05What happened to the complaints that had not been resolved before the new managers took over?

This was the home’s first comprehensive inspection and looked at the premises and care across all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of The Lakes Care Centre

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.

  1. December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at The Lakes Care Centre →

  2. April 2018Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at The Lakes Care Centre →

  3. March 2017

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 March 2017.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire

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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.

“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Katrina O., about Sekai M.
See live-in carers near GloucestershireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.