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 were assured about infection prevention and control. This included PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting, admissions and plans for managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
The Laurels was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2021. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control arrangements because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
The inspectors were assured about visiting arrangements, admissions, testing, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and plans for managing infections. People were admitted after a negative COVID-19 test and were supported to self-isolate.
The home helped people keep in touch with relatives through scheduled visits and technology. Activities were adapted safely, including drives around the local area.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care.
Keeping in touch
The home arranged screened visits and used technology to help people stay in contact with relatives when indoor visits were suspended.
“Additionally, alternative ways, including the use of technology, had supported people's ability to remain in contact with their relatives.” from the report
Safe admissions
New admissions followed COVID-19 guidance, including testing and support to self-isolate.
“People were only admitted following a negative COVID-19 test result.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors found effective arrangements for PPE, testing, cleaning, waste and laundry, as well as plans for managing infections.
“Action had been taken to reduce the risk of infection spreading which had included the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Activities and wellbeing
Activities were adapted so people could continue meaningful activities safely, including drives around the local area.
“People were being supported with activities and engagements which met their wellbeing needs, in a safe manner.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current arrangements for visiting relatives?
- 02How are people tested and supported if they are admitted to the home?
- 03How do you check that staff use PPE correctly?
- 04How are cleaning schedules and frequently touched surfaces checked?
- 05How are activities adapted to meet each person's wellbeing needs?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; it did not provide ratings for the other four questions or an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 2021 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 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsiveness and inspectors finding safe, kind and person-centred care.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 April 2019. One inspector observed care, spoke with five people, four relatives, the manager and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, complaints, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them stay active and involved in their community.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, including choking and dietary risks, were assessed and managed. Medicines were safely managed, although risk assessments for people who self-medicated were still planned.
The inspection followed information of concern after a person had died. CQC said it found no failings by the provider or manager in relation to that incident. The overall Good rating was sustained from the previous inspection, published on 14 December 2016.
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs, preferences and goals well. They helped people make choices and supported them to live as they wished.
“People's needs and wishes were met by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Community life
People were supported to take part in local groups, trips and activities. Staff helped people overcome barriers and remain socially active.
“The service had remained flexible and responsive to people's individual needs to enable them to lead as full a life as possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity, equality and independence were respected.
“Respect for privacy and dignity was at the heart of the service.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were administered and managed safely. Care plans contained detailed information about risks and the support people needed.
“We reviewed people's medicines administration records and care plans and found that they had been completed with no gaps and provided staff with the information they needed.” from the report
Self-medication checks
minorSome people self-medicated with medicines such as eye drops and creams. The manager planned to put risk assessments in place to monitor this.
“The registered manager planned to put risk assessments in place to help monitor people's abilities to self-medicate.” from the report
Infection control audit arrangements
minorThe home was clean and infection control procedures were followed. The manager was reviewing how often infection control audits took place.
“The registered manager was reviewing the frequency of these audits which would ensure infection control practices were maintained.” from the report
- 01Which people currently self-medicate, and have risk assessments now been completed for them?
- 02How often are infection control audits carried out now, and what happens when an issue is found?
- 03How are people's choking and dietary risks assessed and kept up to date?
- 04How does the home make sure activities and community outings still reflect each person's current interests and wishes?
- 05What changes have been made since the 2019 inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the overall quality and safety of the home and gave ratings for all five key questions; it was prompted in part by concerns about dietary needs and choking risk after a person's death. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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.
Every inspection of The Laurels
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- February 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 February 2016.
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
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”
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.