CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Lustrells
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified, assessed and monitored, with clearer guidance for staff than at the previous inspection. They also found enough staff, safe medicine systems and safeguarding training.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support from trained staff and were helped with eating, drinking, health care and oral care. Staff worked with health and social care professionals and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful, adapted how they communicated and involved people in decisions. People were supported to make choices and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff understood people's social, cultural, sensory and physical needs. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open and positive culture, good teamwork and systems to monitor quality. People, relatives and staff were given opportunities to provide feedback and influence improvements.
What inspectors found, March 2020
The Lustrells was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with safety improving since the last inspection.
This was a scheduled inspection on 19 February 2020. One inspector visited the home, observed care, spoke with staff, requested feedback from relatives and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable training and care that promoted choice, independence and health.
People were treated kindly and staff knew them well. Care was personalised, activities took place daily, and people were supported to maintain relationships, use community facilities and develop new skills.
The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection because risk assessments and guidance had been significantly improved. The overall rating remained Good, as it had been at the inspection published on 17 August 2017.
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's individual needs and wishes. Staff knew people well and supported their independence, choices and goals.
“Care plans covered every aspect of the person's life and gave staff guidance around their wishes and how they were best supported.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed warm interactions. Staff respected privacy, dignity and communication needs, and gave people choices throughout the day.
“We observed friendly and warm interactions between the staff and people.” from the report
Improved safety
The home had improved its risk assessments since the previous inspection. Staff had clearer guidance about specific risks and how to reduce them.
“At this inspection we found significant improvements had been made to care documentation, to ensure staff had the right guidance.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to pursue interests, maintain relationships and use local facilities. Activities included swimming, gym sessions, trips and cooking.
“People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests, such as swimming, going to the gym and regular trips to London.” from the report
Equipment fault
minorA bath chair was out of action because of an electrical fault during the inspection. The manager had contacted an engineer, who was due to attend.
“At the time of inspection there was a bath chair that was out of action due to an electronical fault” from the report
- 01How quickly are equipment faults such as the bath chair repaired, and what alternative support is provided while equipment is unavailable?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's risk assessments reflect their specific conditions and are updated when their needs change?
- 03How would you support my relative to make choices if they communicate using pictures, prompts or other communication tools?
- 04What activities and community opportunities could my relative take part in, based on their interests and abilities?
- 05How would you involve us in care planning, reviews and decisions about changes in our relative's health or support?
This was a scheduled inspection of the care home covering all five key questions, including the premises, care provided, observations, discussions and records. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 2020 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, August 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that some health and safety risks were not assessed or managed well enough.
Inspectors visited the home on 29 June 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a health care professional. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, incident records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable. People received personalised care, took part in activities and went out into the local community. Staff supported people with food, drinks, medicines and health appointments.
Safe care was rated Requires Improvement. The risks linked to one person's enteral feeding tube were not fully assessed, and there was not enough guidance for staff. A person at risk of pressure sores did not have a risk assessment or care plan. Inspectors said these issues needed to improve, but they did not judge them to be breaches of regulations.
Kind relationships
People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Inspectors saw warmth, humour and positive interactions throughout the visit.
“People were relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff and we observed many interactions that demonstrated the closeness of their relationships.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's routines, preferences and communication needs in detail. Staff used this information to provide consistent support.
“Care plans were detailed and written in a personalised way.” from the report
Improving leadership
The report describes better communication, morale and record keeping under the new manager. Audits and incident reviews were used to address shortfalls.
“A range of management systems and processes were being used. These were effective in monitoring the quality of the service.” from the report
Enteral feeding risks
seriousThe risk assessment for one person's feeding tube did not say clearly which trained staff could use it. It also lacked guidance on recognising problems and what action to take.
“Potential risks associated with an enteral feeding system had not been identified and the care plan lacked guidance for staff in how to manage the system.” from the report
Pressure care planning
seriousA person at risk of pressure sores did not have a risk assessment or care plan. Staff had not been trained in managing skin integrity.
“Staff had not received training in managing skin integrity and there was no risk assessment and care plan in place.” from the report
- 01What detailed risk assessment and care plan are now in place for enteral feeding?
- 02Which staff are trained and assessed as competent to manage the enteral feeding system?
- 03How do staff monitor skin integrity and prevent pressure sores?
- 04What training have staff received in pressure care and how is their competence checked?
- 05How are the previously identified safety shortfalls reviewed and signed off?
This was an announced first inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 2017 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 Lustrells
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 November 2015.
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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.