CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Lawns
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that young people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, risk management, medicines and infection control were generally safe, although some safeguarding training, policies and paper records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Assessments were detailed and therapeutic care was based on young people's needs. Staff had relevant training and supervision, and the home worked with health and other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Young people said staff were supportive, listened to them and helped them feel safe. They were involved in care planning and supported to develop independence and maintain family contact.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was individualised and based on each young person's history, needs and wishes. Young people were supported with relationships, activities, communication needs and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager and senior staff were visible and accessible. Audits and quality checks were in place, and planned developments included changes to the building and more clinical input.
What inspectors found, July 2021
The Lawns was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some training and record-keeping improvements still needed.
This was the first inspection of the home. It was unannounced and took place over 24 and 25 June 2021. Two inspectors spoke with young people, staff and professionals, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines management, clean premises, effective therapeutic support and positive relationships between staff and young people.
Some improvements were still needed. These included completing higher-level safeguarding training, creating a specific child exploitation policy, improving paper care records and continuing to monitor medicine storage temperatures. The home had identified some of these issues and had plans to address them.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet young people's assessed needs. Recruitment checks were described as robust, and regular agency staff helped provide consistency.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Supportive relationships
Young people described staff as kind, supportive and willing to listen. Inspectors also saw respectful and warm interactions.
“The staff are here for me. I can talk to them about how I feel, and they listen.” from the report
Personalised therapeutic care
Care was planned around each young person's complex history and needs. Self-injury was approached as a response to trauma rather than something to punish.
“We found the therapeutic care provided was individualised and planned with the input of the young person.” from the report
Positive outcomes
Inspectors heard that young people had made progress and that the home's approach had reduced the need for restraint. Staff received clinical and reflective supervision.
“We saw evidence of the therapeutic approach used by staff having a positive impact as the number of restraint incidents recorded were minimal.” from the report
Safeguarding training
needs fixingHigher-level safeguarding training for staff working directly with children had not started. Inspectors were not given a clear timescale for when it would be completed.
“Level 3 Safeguarding Children training is required by staff working directly with children and young people in accordance with current intercollegiate guidance.” from the report
Child exploitation policy
needs fixingThe home did not have a separate policy covering child exploitation, despite risks being identified for all young people. Management said they would look at creating one.
“Despite the risks of child exploitation identified for all, there was no standalone child exploitation policy.” from the report
Paper records
needs fixingSome paper risk records were out of date and some handwriting could not be read easily. The home had already identified that its record organisation needed improvement.
“We found some paper records relating to risk management were not always up to date and some hand written records were illegible.” from the report
Medicine storage checks
minorThe home made improvements during the inspection so medicines were stored at the correct temperature. Families should ask how this is now monitored routinely.
“During our inspection visit improvements were made to systems to ensure medicines were always stored at the correct temperature.” from the report
Food hygiene inspection
minorThe local authority had not yet carried out a food hygiene inspection. The report does not say that food was unsafe.
“The service had not yet received a food hygiene inspection from the local authority.” from the report
- 01Has all required Level 3 safeguarding children training now been completed, and when was it completed?
- 02Has the separate child exploitation policy been written, including coverage of criminal exploitation?
- 03How are paper risk and care records checked to make sure they are current and readable?
- 04How are medicine storage temperatures recorded and reviewed now?
- 05What progress has been made in arranging psychiatric input for medicines and mental health assessments?
This was the first comprehensive inspection and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; the provider information return could not be viewed because of technical problems. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 July 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 Lawns
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 November 2019.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“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.