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
- Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines systems, risk assessments and infection control arrangements. Familiar agency staff were being used while permanent vacancies were filled.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had access to health professionals and staff received training, supervision and appraisals. The home followed the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff understood how people communicated, responded promptly and respected people's privacy, choices and individual needs. Inspectors observed positive and supportive relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and reviewed when people's needs changed. The home was developing more person-centred activities and could provide easy-read and large-print information if needed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a visible manager, regular audits and a clear management structure. An internal audit had identified areas needing improvement, and inspectors saw significant improvement in care planning and recording.
What inspectors found, July 2018
The Laurels was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some work still needed on staffing, activities and accessible information.
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas. The inspector reviewed care records, staff files, audits, surveys, rotas and policies. They also spoke with the manager, staff and outside professionals, and reviewed feedback from relatives.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, detailed care plans, suitable health support and kind relationships between staff and people.
The home had improved its care planning and recording. However, one staff vacancy and a waking night vacancy were being covered with familiar agency staff. The manager was also not aware of the Accessible Information Standard, and more personalised activities were still being developed.
Detailed care plans
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about people's needs, preferences, communication and how they wanted to be supported.
“People had care plans in place which provided detailed guidance to staff on the support people required.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well, understood their individual communication and offered prompt emotional and practical support.
“Staff were kind, caring and had a positive relationship with people and had a good understanding of peoples' needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found no gaps in the medicines records they checked. Staffing levels were based on people's needs and staff were not rushed.
“There were enough skilled staff deployed to support people and meet their needs.” from the report
Good health support
People were supported to see health professionals, including specialist services when required. Staff acted promptly when health concerns arose.
“People had access to specialist health services when required such as the speech and language therapist, dietitian and consultants.” from the report
Accessible information
needs fixingThe manager did not know about the Accessible Information Standard. They said easy-read and large-print information could be produced if needed, but the report identified this as an area requiring awareness.
“The registered manager told us they were not aware of the accessible information standard.” from the report
Activities still developing
minorThe manager was working on activities that were more personalised and community-focused. Families should check what activities are now available for their relative.
“The registered manager was in the process of creating more person centred activities.” from the report
Internal audit identified improvements
minorAn internal quarterly audit found improvements were needed in several areas. Inspectors saw that the manager and staff had acted, including significant improvement in care planning and recording.
“An internal quarterly audit dated January 2018 to March 2018 found improvements were required.” from the report
- 01Have the permanent staff and waking night vacancies mentioned in the report now been filled?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff know my relative's care plan and communication needs?
- 03How will you provide easy-read, large-print or other accessible information for my relative?
- 04What person-centred and community activities are now available, and how are people's choices recorded?
- 05What actions were taken after the internal audit identified improvements in effective, responsive, safe and well-led care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, including the care and premises, and the report says the home remained Good since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 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
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 2014.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.