CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Laurels
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk management, staffing, recruitment, medicine and infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. The report did describe people receiving kind, respectful and compassionate care, but no current Caring rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and interests. People were supported with communication, relationships, activities, employment and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and inclusive culture, clear responsibilities and systems for checking quality, learning from incidents and improving care.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some work still needed to record goals and redecorate the home.
This was an unannounced focused inspection over two days. One inspector spoke with all six people living there, three relatives and six staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The people inspectors spoke with said they felt safe and liked the staff. They found that people were supported to make choices, stay independent, take part in work and activities, and keep in touch with relatives. Care was described as kind, respectful and tailored to individual needs.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were each rated Good and remained unchanged from the previous inspection. Effective and Caring were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Choice and independence
People were involved in everyday life at the home and were supported to make choices, learn skills and do things for themselves.
“People were fully involved in the running of the service on a day-to-day basis and participated in household tasks” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well and adapted support to their individual needs, privacy and dignity.
“We observed people receiving compassionate and empowering care which was tailored to their needs throughout the inspection.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff were trained and their competence was checked.
“Medicines were audited, and any issues identified were rectified.” from the report
Community life
People were supported to pursue interests, take part in activities, volunteer and work where they wanted to.
“People were supported to follow their interests.” from the report
Goals not yet formally recorded
minorThe home was still developing a formal record of people's goals and wishes. Staff knew people's wishes, but families may want to check how this recording is being completed.
“They were in the process of formally recording people's goals and wishes” from the report
Delayed redecoration
minorPeople said they had been waiting a long time for redecoration. The manager had requested the work, but the report does not say when it would be completed.
“People told us they wanted their home to be re-decorated and felt they had waited a long time.” from the report
- 01How are people's goals and wishes now being formally recorded and reviewed?
- 02When will the requested redecoration be completed, and how are residents involved in deciding what changes are made?
- 03How are positive behaviour support plans being developed for people who experience anxiety?
- 04How will you support my relative to take part in work, activities or community life that interests them?
- 05How can my relative and family raise a concern, and what response time should we expect?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 July 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some privacy and maintenance issues to follow up.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 and 5 December 2017. The inspector met all six people living in the home, spoke with staff, relatives and visitors, observed care, and checked medicines, care records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines practices, enough staff, personalised care plans, good support with health needs and activities, and kind relationships between staff and residents.
The home had improved since July 2015, when Safe was rated Requires Improvement because medicines self-management and some community risk assessments were not recorded well enough. At this inspection, these areas had improved. Inspectors noted that the manager was not yet registered with the CQC but was in the process of registering.
Safer medicines support
The home had put suitable assessments in place for people who handled their own medicines. Staff were trained and medicines records and audits were in place.
“Suitable risk assessments for people who self-medicate were now in place.” from the report
Kind and patient staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience and kindness. Staff understood how people communicated and gave reassurance when people were anxious.
“People were supported by staff who were observed to be kind and caring and staff treated people with patience and kindness.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, history, communication needs and routines. People, families and advocates were involved in planning and reviews.
“People's care plans were person-centred, detailed how they wanted their needs to be met in line with their wishes and preferences” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and to help with meals and household tasks. Staff encouraged people to do things at their own pace.
“People lived full and active lives and were supported to access a wide range of activities that reflected people's interests and individual hobbies.” from the report
Open management
Staff, relatives and people spoke positively about the management. The home used audits, feedback and incident reviews to identify improvements.
“The service was well led.” from the report
Hallway carpet
minorThe main stairs and hallway carpet was badly stained. The manager said they were obtaining a quote to replace it.
“However the main stairs and hallway carpet was badly stained.” from the report
Privacy at the front door
needs fixingPeople who could answer the door did not have their own keys. Staff let themselves in, although the manager planned to address this.
“However people did not hold keys to their own home.” from the report
Manager registration
needs fixingThere was a manager in post, but they were not yet registered with the CQC. The report says the manager was in the process of registering.
“There was a manager in post however they were yet to be registered with us.” from the report
- 01Has the badly stained main stairs and hallway carpet now been replaced?
- 02Can residents who are able to do so now answer the door and control access to their own home?
- 03Has the manager completed registration with the CQC?
- 04How are staffing levels arranged at weekends, particularly for people who need one-to-one support when going out?
- 05How are current risk assessments checked for people who self-administer their medicines?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including all five CQC questions, and it followed up concerns about medicines and community risk assessments found in July 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 January 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.
Every inspection of The Laurels
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 August 2013.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.