CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Laurels Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place, including safe use of protective equipment, testing, hygiene, visiting and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted report does not give a finding for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted report does not give a finding for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted report does not give a finding for Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted report does not give a finding for Well-led.
What inspectors found, March 2021
The Laurels Residential Home: targeted inspection found good infection control practice, but the service was not rated.
Inspectors visited the home on 17 February 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found the premises were clean and well maintained. Staff had received infection control training, their skills were checked, and staff were seen following correct practice.
The home had arrangements for safe visits, regular COVID-19 testing and vaccination offers. Inspectors were assured about the use of protective equipment, social distancing, admissions and managing infection outbreaks.
The home was marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This means the report does not give a new overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Clean premises
Inspectors found the premises clean and well maintained. A refurbishment programme was also under way.
“The premises were clean and well maintained. The home was undergoing a refurbishment programme to update and improve the premises.” from the report
Staff infection control training
All staff had received infection control training, and their competence was checked regularly. Inspectors saw staff following the correct practice.
“All staff had received training in infection prevention and control and their competency was regularly checked.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home supported telephone and video calls and had created an outdoor safe space for face-to-face visits.
“Relatives and friends were encouraged to keep in contact with their loved ones via telephone and video calls.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People living and working at the home had been offered a vaccine and were regularly tested for COVID-19 in line with government guidance.
“All people living and working at The Laurels had been offered a vaccine and were regularly tested for COVID-19 in line with government guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What progress has been made with the refurbishment programme, and how has it affected people living in the home?
- 02How often are staff's infection prevention and control skills checked now?
- 03What arrangements are currently in place for visits from relatives and friends?
- 04How are residents and staff currently tested for COVID-19, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 05Can you show me the latest full CQC inspection rating, since this report was not rated?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide new ratings for the other four questions or an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with minor issues in recording as-required medicines and keeping moving and handling training up to date.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 1 May 2018. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff training, complaints, safeguarding information, accident records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, their care records were personal to them, and staff supported their choices, food, drinks, health needs and activities.
There were two minor issues. Records did not always show the time that as-required medicine was given, although this was corrected during the inspection. Some moving and handling training was overdue, but it had been booked and inspectors did not consider this a cause for concern.
The previous inspection in March 2017 rated the home Requires Improvement, with no breaches. Inspectors said the improvements had been maintained and care delivery was consistent at this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treat people with patience, compassion and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity and independence.
“Staff displayed kindness, compassion and empathy in their relationships with people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records covered people's individual health, personal, communication, mobility, nutrition and social needs. They were regularly reviewed and used to guide staff.
“Care records were person-centred and comprehensive, and easy to navigate.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were offered choices about meals, where to eat and how to spend their time. Inspectors saw people enjoying several activities and outings were also arranged.
“People had access to a large range of individual and group activities, and actively took part in what was arranged.” from the report
Strong management
The manager was described as approachable and supportive. Staff meetings, audits and feedback from people and relatives were used to improve the home.
“Quality assurance measures evidenced effective scrutiny of all aspects of care delivery and the home management.” from the report
As-required medicine records
needs fixingThe time was not always recorded when as-required medicine was given. The home corrected this before inspectors left, to reduce the risk of doses being given too close together.
“Records did not always show the time of PRN, or 'as required', medication but this was remedied before we left the home” from the report
Overdue moving and handling training
minorSome staff were overdue for moving and handling refresher training. The training had been booked, and inspectors said the staff's observed competence meant this was not a cause for concern at the time.
“The training matrix identified moving and handling training was overdue for some staff but this had been booked.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the exact time when as-required medicines are given?
- 02Have all staff completed the moving and handling refresher training that was overdue at the inspection?
- 03How long might a person have to wait if two people need help at the same time?
- 04How are care plans and risk assessments updated when a person's needs change?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews, complaints and decisions about activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, with the home receiving Good ratings in each area. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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 Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at The Laurels Residential Home →
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Laurels Residential Home →
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Wakefield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.