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 avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough familiar staff, safe recruitment, effective risk management and robust medicines systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks, clear action plans and a management team that staff trusted. The previous governance breach had been resolved.
What inspectors found, November 2022
The Laurels was rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and improvements in medicines, maintenance and management systems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. The inspector visited on 25 August 2022 and reviewed records, medicines, recruitment files and quality checks. They also spoke with one person and seven staff members.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, supported by enough familiar staff and given the correct medicines. Staff understood people's needs, choices and risks.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. Earlier concerns about maintenance, medicines and governance had been addressed, and the previous breach of Regulation 17 had been resolved.
This visit did not inspect all five areas. The overall Good rating used the new Safe and Well-led findings together with ratings from the previous inspection.
Person-centred support
Staff knew people well and supported them in a relaxed, respectful way. People were helped to make choices using their preferred communication methods.
“We observed people being supported by staff who knew them well using a person-centred approach.” from the report
Safe staffing
People said there were enough staff and that they did not feel rushed. Inspectors saw staff spending time with people and supporting activities of their choice.
“We observed safe staffing levels during the inspection and staff had time to spend with people” from the report
Medicines management
The earlier concern about medicine expiry dates had been addressed. Inspectors found medicines were in date and systems for giving, recording and storing them were robust.
“At this inspection this was no longer a concern; the provider had robust management, administration and storage processes in place.” from the report
Improved governance
The home had introduced clearer action plans and systems for monitoring care and completing improvements. The previous breach relating to good governance was no longer in place.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to try new experiences and work towards personal goals. Changes to the environment included better garden access for wheelchair users and a bedroom adapted to sensory needs.
“There was a culture of positive risk taking within the service led by the registered manager.” from the report
Electronic records still being introduced
minorThe home was moving from paper records to an electronic system. Inspectors noted challenges in making sure all records were completed consistently, although there was a plan to finish the change.
“The registered manager was open about the challenges of this transition and ensuring all records were consistently completed during this transition.” from the report
- 01Has the move from paper records to the electronic system been completed, and are records now consistently kept up to date?
- 02How will you make sure medicines remain correctly dated, stored, administered and recorded?
- 03How do you support each person to communicate choices and change their mind about activities or care?
- 04How do you assess and manage risks when supporting people to try new experiences or access the community?
- 05How do you involve families and people living at the home in decisions about improvements and activities?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 November 2022 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, October 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but medicines checks, maintenance and quality monitoring were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days in June 2021. Inspectors met everyone living at the home, spoke with residents, staff and families, and checked care, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home provided kind and person-centred care. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, communicate in their preferred ways and take part in meaningful activities. Staff were trained and understood people's needs.
Inspectors found problems with expired medicines, medicine checks and some outstanding maintenance. Care records did not always fully reflect the person-centred support being provided. The systems used to check quality and safety had not found these issues.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. The home remained in breach of Regulation 17, although the earlier breach relating to consent had been resolved.
Kind, respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate kindly and protect people's privacy and dignity. Families spoke positively about the care.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who protected and respected their privacy and dignity and understood each person's individual needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to control their daily lives, make meaningful choices and use equipment or communication methods that increased their independence.
“People were supported to be independent and had control over their own lives. Their human rights were upheld.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities reflected people's preferences and included shopping, ball games, wheelchair dancing and interactive book reading.
“People had access to a range of meaningful activities in line with their personal preferences.” from the report
Staff knowledge and training
Staff received relevant training, supervision and appraisal. They understood learning disability, autism, communication and people's legal rights.
“People received care, support and treatment from trained staff and specialists able to meet their needs and wishes.” from the report
Medicine storage and checks
seriousInspectors found expired seizure rescue medicine and expired cream. Creams were not dated when opened, so the home could not show that they were safe to use as instructed.
“Expiry dates of prescribed medicines were not regularly checked in accordance with the provider's medication policy.” from the report
Outstanding maintenance
needs fixingSome repairs had not been completed, including damage to a kitchen surface that had been identified as an infection prevention risk. Some sensory equipment was also not working.
“We observed that there were some outstanding maintenance works that had not been completed.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's audits and internal checks did not identify the medicine problems. Some high-priority maintenance actions were also not completed quickly enough.
“We found that some of the provider's quality assurance processes were not always sufficiently robust.” from the report
Care records not always complete
needs fixingThe care records did not always describe the person-centred support that inspectors observed. The manager said this was being worked on.
“the care records did not always reflect the person-centred support we observed being offered to people.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicines are within their expiry dates and that creams are dated when opened?
- 02Which maintenance issues found at the inspection have now been completed, and how do you track high-priority repairs?
- 03What extra quality assurance checks were introduced after the inspection, and what have they found?
- 04How have you updated care records so they consistently reflect the person-centred support people receive?
- 05What evidence can you show that the Regulation 17 breach has been fully addressed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures; the home was also checked against the Right support, right care, right culture principles. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 October 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.
Every inspection of The Laurels
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 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
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.