CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Lindsay
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found the home safe, but staffing, consent checks and management oversight needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 and 12 October 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People generally felt safe, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, and staff understood safeguarding. However, some people waited too long for call bells to be answered because there were not always enough staff.
Effective and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in mental capacity assessments and consent records, inconsistent oral care, missed staff supervisions and management checks that had not identified these problems.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The manager took immediate action during the inspection, but inspectors will check whether the changes have worked at the next inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives generally said the home was safe and that people were well looked after.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Staff had the right training and checks to give medicines safely. Records matched the medicines held.
“Medication records were complete and matched stock balances.” from the report
Staff training
The home provided induction and ongoing training. Inspectors found staff had the skills and knowledge needed for their roles.
“Staff had the correct level of skills and training to undertake the responsibilities of their role effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and respect. Relatives also gave positive feedback about how they and their relatives were treated.
“There was a positive culture within the home. Staff interacted with people in a kind and considerate manner, treating them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Staffing and call bell waits
seriousThere were not always enough staff to meet people's needs. Some people reported waiting a long time for call bells to be answered.
“People told us staffing levels did not always meet their needs.” from the report
Mental capacity and consent records
seriousSome people did not have the required capacity assessments, and care plans contained conflicting information. People had not always signed records to show they consented to their care.
“People did not always have the necessary assessments in place to ensure their rights had been fully respected under the MCA.” from the report
Oral care
needs fixingThe home's oral care policy was not always followed. Some people were not consistently supported with teeth cleaning or routine dental appointments.
“[Staff] don't clean my teeth always and it makes you feel a bit rubbish” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingAudits and other checks did not identify several of the problems found by inspectors. The provider was asked to strengthen its governance systems.
“Quality assurance systems in place to monitor and improve the standard of the service were not always robust.” from the report
Staff supervision and morale
needs fixingSome staff had not received supervision as required by the home's policy. Frequent changes in managers had contributed to low staff morale.
“Some staff had not received supervision as specified in the provider's supervision policy, due to recent changes in the management of the service.” from the report
- 01How are staffing levels now calculated for each shift, and what has been done to reduce call bell waiting times?
- 02How do you check that every person's mental capacity assessment and consent records are correct and up to date?
- 03How do you make sure each person receives the oral care set out in their care plan and policy?
- 04How often are staff supervisions now completed, and how is staff morale being monitored?
- 05What new audits or management checks have been introduced, and how will you show that they are finding and fixing problems?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their current ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 December 2023 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements during the Covid-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 15 February 2021. It looked at how the home prevented and controlled infections during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors said people, staff and visitors were protected from infection. They found safe visiting arrangements, suitable personal protective equipment, regular cleaning, testing, vaccination arrangements and infection control training.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give ratings for the quality of care overall or for the other four areas CQC normally considers.
Infection control
Inspectors found that the home's policies and staff practices followed best practice guidance to protect people, staff and visitors from infection.
“People, staff and visitors to The Lindsay were protected from risks of infection as policies and staff practices reflected best practice guidance.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visits were controlled and supported by trained staff. Visitors completed health checks, had their temperature taken and received a rapid Covid-19 test.
“Visits were by appointment only and supported by trained staff.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had regular cleaning schedules, checks of frequently touched areas and enough domestic staff to maintain standards.
“The home looked visibly clean and hygienic throughout.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
There was enough personal protective equipment, and staff were observed using it correctly. Staff had also received guidance on putting it on and taking it off.
“The home had a plentiful supply of all required PPE and staff were observed wearing this correctly.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
The home used individual risk assessments and regular one-to-one sessions to support people's mental wellbeing during the pandemic.
“People had individual Covid-19 risk assessments and had regular one to one sessions to keep socially stimulated.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since this inspection in February 2021?
- 02How do you currently manage visits, including health checks, testing and support for people who cannot have ordinary visits?
- 03What happens when someone is admitted from hospital or needs to self-isolate?
- 04How do you support residents' social and emotional wellbeing if visits or group activities are restricted?
- 05What are the home's current CQC ratings and when was the most recent full inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. 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.
Every inspection of The Lindsay
2 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.