CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Loont
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- The home was not always safe. Inspectors found environmental hazards, incomplete emergency plans, some medicines that were not securely stored and inaccurate medicine records.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed well. Staff supported people's health, independence, food choices and access to other health and social care services.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff treated them well. Inspectors saw friendly relationships, respect for privacy and dignity, and support for people to make their own choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's needs and preferences, with involvement from families. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives and to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider and manager had not monitored the home's safety and quality effectively enough. Some checks did not lead to timely action, and staff could not show inspectors key policies.
What inspectors found, October 2022
The Loont was Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective and responsive care, but safety and oversight needed improvement.
This was the first inspection since the home was registered. One inspector visited without notice on 7 July 2022. They spoke with three people staying there, a relative, a health and social care professional and three staff members. They also reviewed care, medicine and management records.
People were treated kindly and with respect. Staff supported people's choices, independence and health needs. Care was planned with people and their families, and inspectors found that some people had regained skills and moved closer to more independent living.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found unsafe windows, water that was too hot, damaged outdoor areas, maintenance problems and missing or incomplete emergency plans. Some medicines were not stored securely and some medicine records were inaccurate. The provider's checks had not found or acted on these problems quickly enough.
Kind and respectful staff
People told inspectors they were treated well. Staff promoted dignity, independence and choice in everyday activities.
“Staff treated people with respect and actively promoted their dignity and independence.” from the report
Personalised planning
People and their families were involved in planning short stays. Staff assessed needs and preferences before people arrived.
“People's needs and choices were effectively assessed before coming to stay at the home.” from the report
Good health support
Staff worked with other professionals to support people's health and help them achieve positive outcomes.
“Staff at the home worked effectively with other agencies to help people access and receive appropriate healthcare and achieve positive health outcomes.” from the report
People felt safe from abuse
People said they felt safe, and staff knew what to do if they suspected abuse.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Unsafe parts of the building
seriousInspectors found upstairs windows without restrictors and water that was too hot, creating risks of falls and scalding. The provider addressed these risks quickly, but other maintenance and outside-area problems remained.
“hot water for bathing and washing was too hot and considerably above the required temperature for care homes” from the report
Medicine storage and records
seriousSome medicines were not securely stored. Stock checks found that three of six medicines did not match the records by one or two doses.
“Some medicine was not securely stored, although when we visited there was nobody at the home at risk of taking medicines inappropriately, this may not always be the case.” from the report
Risk information was not always current
needs fixingRisk assessments had been completed, but staff could not always readily access the latest information when people were staying at the home.
“these were not always readily available or contained the most up to date information for staff members” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe provider's checks were not thorough enough to identify and resolve safety problems promptly. Staff also could not show inspectors copies of key policies.
“The checks on the safety of the home's environment had not been sufficiently thorough and detailed in order to be effective.” from the report
- 01Have all the window restrictors, hot-water controls, fencing, gate and drainage problems now been fixed?
- 02How are medicines stored securely, and how are medicine stock records checked for accuracy?
- 03How will staff access the latest risk assessments and personal emergency evacuation plans during each person's stay?
- 04What checks now take place to make sure safety problems are identified and acted on promptly?
- 05Are all key policies available to staff at the home, and how often do staff receive supervision?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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 Loont
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.