CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Lawrence
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection controls were mostly assured, but parts of the building needed refurbishment.
This was a targeted inspection on 27 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 response, and asked about staffing pressures.
The home had visitor controls, PPE, hand sanitiser and regular testing. People were supported to understand restrictions, go into the community and return safely. Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements.
The home was not given an overall rating. Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene of the premises because some areas needed refurbishment, including a cracked ceiling.
Visitor infection controls
The home had measures at the entrance to reduce the risk of visitors spreading infection. PPE and hand sanitiser supplies were well stocked.
“There were measures in place to prevent any visitors from spreading infection at the entrance and on entering the premises.” from the report
Testing and isolation
People and staff were tested regularly. The registered manager monitored staff results and supported people to self-isolate when needed.
“People living at The Lawrence and staff were tested regularly in line with government guidance.” from the report
Support with restrictions
People were given information about restrictions in accessible ways and were supported to go out and return safely.
“Staff supported people to understand the current restrictions through easy read documents, videos and discussions.” from the report
COVID-19 procedures
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements for PPE, admissions, testing, visiting and managing infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Premises needed repair
needs fixingSome parts of the building needed refurbishment, including a cracked ceiling. The manager said there was a plan and was working on an action plan from the local authority infection control team.
“Parts of the premises were in need of refurbishment, such as a cracked ceiling.” from the report
- 01What refurbishment has been completed since the inspection, particularly regarding the cracked ceiling?
- 02What actions were set by the local authority infection prevention and control team, and which actions are still outstanding?
- 03How did COVID-19-related staffing pressures affect people's care and daily routines at the time?
- 04How are testing, isolation and staff return-to-work decisions managed now?
- 05How are visits and trips into the local community arranged safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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, May 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective, caring and well-led support, but responsive care Requires Improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 10 April 2019. They spoke with people and a relative, observed care, checked four care plans and two medicines records, and reviewed other documents. They also checked information from previous reports and other agencies.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly, supported to make choices, and helped to maintain their independence.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Some care plans were not in accessible formats, one relationship plan needed updating, and end of life wishes were not always recorded or reviewed. Inspectors made recommendations for improvement, but the report does not say that regulations were breached.
Safety systems
Inspectors found systems for recruitment, risk assessment, medicines and safeguarding. The building was clean and there were enough safely recruited staff.
“Systems associated with recruitment, risk assessment, medicines and safeguarding protected people from abuse and harm, and the building was clean.” from the report
Good outcomes
People received effective support, including help with decisions, food, healthcare and hospital admissions.
“People's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence. People could maintain friendships and one person had moved to live independently with their partner.
“People lived in a caring environment, and were able to maintain friendships and their independence.” from the report
Activities and community life
People had meaningful activities at home and regular opportunities to go out in the community.
“People were well supported with activities in the home and had regular opportunities to go out in the community on their own, with staff or as a group.” from the report
Management checks
The management team used audits and other checks to monitor the service and look for patterns or trends.
“Audits and other checks enabled the provider to monitor quality in the service.” from the report
Accessible care plans
needs fixingCare plans were detailed, but there was limited information in formats that might be easier for people to understand, such as fewer words or pictures. The provider was asked to introduce accessible care plans as soon as possible.
“There was limited documentation available to people in alternative formats which may have been more accessible to them.” from the report
Personal relationship plan
needs fixingOne person's relationship care plan had not been updated after a possible change in circumstances. The person had not always received the support described in the plan.
“The person had not always been supported in the ways described in the plan.” from the report
Privacy in discussions
minorInspectors heard some care discussions in places where other people could hear them, such as with doors open. This was raised with the manager.
“There were some occasions where people's care was discussed indiscreetly with us, for example with doors open or in earshot of other people who used the service.” from the report
Safeguarding confidence
minorStaff knowledge about making safeguarding referrals could be stronger. The manager was recommended to check staff confidence and provide more training if needed.
“We found knowledge about making safeguarding alerts could be more robust, and recommended the registered manager check staff confidence in this area and provide additional training as required.” from the report
- 01What accessible format will you use for my relative's care plan, and how will you check that they understand and can review it?
- 02How do you keep relationship and sexuality support plans up to date when someone's circumstances or wishes change?
- 03How will you discuss and record my relative's end of life wishes, including if they do not want to discuss them?
- 04How do you make sure private care information cannot be overheard by other people?
- 05How confident are staff in making safeguarding referrals, and what extra training has been provided?
This was a scheduled, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the overall rating remained Good from the October 2016 inspection, while Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 May 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 Lawrence
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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
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.