CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Long Brook Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some risks were not properly assessed or reduced. Medicines were not always stored securely or managed through reliable recording systems, and recruitment checks were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff had skills and experience to meet people's needs, but induction and supervision were not regular enough. Capacity assessments and best-interest decisions did not properly follow the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions, supported to remain independent and able to maintain relationships with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and care plans included information about their preferences and needs. More detail was needed in some records, and there was a temporary lack of activities.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider's quality systems did not reliably identify or address problems. Records were not always accurate or up to date, and the move from paper to electronic records had not been managed effectively.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but serious weaknesses in safety, medicines, staff support and management.
This was the first planned inspection since the home was newly registered. It was unannounced and took place on 28 July and 1 August 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff recruitment and other records.
People and relatives spoke warmly about the care. Inspectors found staff were kind, knew people well and responded to their needs. The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive. Food, the premises and access to health professionals were also viewed positively.
However, the home was not always safe or effective. Risks were not always properly assessed, medicines were not always stored or managed safely, and recruitment checks were incomplete. Staff did not always receive a proper induction or regular supervision. Mental Capacity Act records and decisions were also not completed properly.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. The home had breached five regulations, and the provider was asked to send an action plan. CQC said it would monitor progress and take further action if needed.
Kind and respectful care
People consistently said staff were caring and respectful. Relatives were also very positive about the standard of care.
“People were well cared for by kind, caring and compassionate staff.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's needs and preferences, helping them receive care that was responsive to their individual circumstances.
“People received care and support that was responsive to their needs because staff had a good knowledge of the people who lived at the service.” from the report
Food and dietary support
People praised the food and were offered choices. Staff and the chef understood dietary needs, allergies and preferences.
“Staff had a good awareness of people's dietary needs and preferences and encouraged and supported people to maintain a balanced healthy diet.” from the report
Clean and suitable surroundings
The home was warm and clean, with single bedrooms, en-suite facilities, adapted corridors and communal spaces including a garden.
“The service was warm, clean throughout and maintained to a high standard.” from the report
Risks were not always managed
seriousA person's risk of harming themselves or others was not included in their care plan or supported by a risk assessment. Environmental, fire safety and incident checks were also not consistently completed or reviewed.
“The failure to effectively manage and mitigate risks placed people at an increased risk of harm.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousMedicines were initially stored unsafely. Records did not always show medicines received or carried over, some medicines were not labelled, and some as-required medicines lacked clear guidance.
“The failure to store people's medicines safely and to established safe processes to manage people's medicines is a breach of Regulation 12” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
seriousCapacity assessments and best-interest decisions were poorly completed. Restrictions such as bedrails had not always been considered through the proper consent and best-interest process.
“The failure to properly assess and record people's capacity and best interest decisions risked compromising people's rights.” from the report
Staff induction and supervision
needs fixingStaff had not completed an induction meeting the Care Certificate standards, and supervision and appraisals were not happening regularly.
“The failure to provide an adequate induction and ongoing support to staff was a breach of Regulation 18” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe provider's checks did not identify several problems found by inspectors. Records were not always accurate or current, and complaints were not formally recorded and reviewed.
“Systems were either not in place or undertaken robustly to identify and monitor the quality of the service and drive improvements.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure all medicines are stored securely, clearly labelled and accurately recorded?
- 02How are individual risks now recorded and reviewed, including risks linked to distress, accidents, the environment and fire safety?
- 03Have all staff completed a proper induction and received regular supervision?
- 04How are capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and restrictions such as bedrails now recorded?
- 05How are quality checks, complaints and incidents recorded, reviewed and used to prevent problems happening again?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the newly registered home covering all five CQC questions, and it was the first rating inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 October 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.
Every inspection of The Long Brook Residential Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Long Brook Residential Home →
- February 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 February 2021.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Plymouth
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.