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 were protected from abuse and received medicines safely. Inspectors found a missing window restrictor and some cleaning shortfalls, but these were addressed during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and understood people's health needs. People were involved in their care and were supported to make choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw calm, respectful and encouraging support. People were involved in decisions and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and staff created a positive culture, but audits were not consistently robust. They had not identified some safety and cleanliness issues, and exterior decoration had no planned completion date.
What inspectors found, October 2019
The Laurels was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but leadership and safety checks needed improvement.
This was a planned inspection on 7 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with four people, three staff members and reviewed care, medicines and management records. Five people lived at the home and four received personal care.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found safe medicines, suitable staff training, respectful relationships and care based on people's choices.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Checks had not consistently found problems with a window restrictor, cleaning and planned exterior decoration. The window restrictor was fitted and cleaning issues were dealt with during the inspection, but the quality checks had not identified them.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and managed safely. Staff were trained and their ability to administer medicines was checked regularly.
“People received their medicines when they needed them and medicines were stored and managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw calm support and found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“People were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was planned around people's choices, interests and needs. People were supported to take part in activities and maintain important relationships.
“People continued to receive support which was based around their needs, choices and preferences.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received training in areas including mental health, epilepsy and behaviours that challenge. Inspectors found staff knowledgeable about their roles and the people they supported.
“People were supported by staff who had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care.” from the report
Safety checks
seriousOne first-floor window did not have the restrictor intended to limit how far it opened, and there was no risk assessment explaining this. The restrictor was fitted during the inspection.
“restrictors, intended to limit the opening windows, were not fitted to one first floor window; there was no risk assessment to support this decision” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingEnvironmental and infection-control audits had not found the missing restrictor or areas that needed cleaning. The home also had no completion date for planned exterior decoration.
“environmental and infection control audits had not identified the concerns found during this inspection” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the quality checks since the inspection?
- 02How do you now check that windows and other environmental safety measures are in place?
- 03How often are cleaning checks completed, and who reviews the results?
- 04Has the planned exterior decoration been completed, and if not, what is the new completion date?
- 05What actions were included in the action plan requested after this inspection?
This inspection looked at the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, while the well-led rating had deteriorated to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 October 2019 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, November 2016
The Laurels rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with strong management and support for independence.
This was an announced inspection on 11 October 2016. One inspector gave the home 24 hours' notice, spoke with people living there, relatives, staff, the manager and a social worker, and looked at care, medicine and management records.
All six people living at the home were supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors found that people felt safe, were involved in decisions, received help with medicines and healthcare, and were supported to make choices and achieve personal goals.
People and relatives described staff as caring and respectful. The home offered activities based on people's interests and supported people to build independence. Complaints were investigated and the management team carried out checks to improve the service.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. This means the inspection found the service met the relevant standards at the time of the visit.
Safe support
Staff knew people's risks and how to support them safely while promoting independence. Inspectors also found safe arrangements for medicines.
“People were supported by staff that knew how to provide care in a safe way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and kind. Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that staff respected people's dignity, privacy and choices.
“People received caring and compassionate support from a staff team that enabled people to live their lives as they chose.” from the report
Personal goals
Care planning focused on what people wanted to achieve. Staff supported people with activities, community links and steps towards greater independence.
“People were encouraged to follow their aspirations and achieve their goals.” from the report
Responsive service
People were involved in decisions about their support, and staff adapted when needs changed. Complaints were recorded, investigated and resolved.
“People were involved in how they were supported by staff who listened and were adaptable to their needs.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff felt able to speak with the management team. The home used regular checks and feedback to identify improvements.
“The management team monitored the quality of the service in an open way.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently support residents to set and achieve their own goals and become more independent?
- 02How are staffing levels decided when residents want to go out into the community?
- 03How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines safely?
- 04How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and changes in support?
- 05What improvements to the living area mentioned in the report have been completed?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and looking at care, medicines, staffing, records and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 November 2016 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.