CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 14 Lingwell Approach
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable staffing, safeguarding training, risk assessments and safe recruitment. Medicines were generally managed safely, but two medicines administration records used the wrong code.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported with nutrition, healthcare and communication, although one best-interests decision had not been reviewed until the second inspection day.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw positive relationships and respectful interactions. People were supported to maintain family links, make choices, remain as independent as possible and have privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and were reviewed with people and relatives. People were supported with activities, community links and ways to communicate their choices.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff and relatives described supportive management. Audits, care reviews and monthly summaries were used to monitor care and identify improvements.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor records issues to address.
Inspectors visited on 24 and 25 September 2018. The first day was unannounced. They observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and checked care plans, medicines records, staffing, recruitment and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and support, and care that respected people's choices, privacy and independence.
There were two errors in medicines records, and one best-interests decision had not been reviewed. The manager dealt with the review during the inspection and agreed to address the medicines recording issue. There was no evidence of serious risks or concerns, and the home remained Good, as at the previous inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff available to meet people's needs. Staff and relatives also said staffing levels were sufficient.
“During the inspection, we observed staff were always available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff supported privacy, independence, family relationships and involvement in daily decisions. Inspectors saw warm and positive interactions.
“We observed positive interactions between staff and people living in the home.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how people communicated preferences and how staff should support choices, including the use of pictures and limited options.
“Due to people's complex needs staff ensured detailed communication plans were in place to support people to consent and make choices about their care.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People took part in activities at home and in the community, including gardening, music, horse riding and visits from a small pony.
“There were a variety of activities so people living in the home had meaningful lives.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits and regular care-file reviews to monitor standards. Inspectors found that identified issues had been addressed.
“We found these had been effective as issues identified had been addressed.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingTwo medicines administration records used the wrong code to show that medicines had not been given. The manager agreed to address this with staff immediately.
“We found two errors on medication administration records (MARs) where the correct code had not been used to show when medicines had not been administered.” from the report
Review of best-interests decisions
needs fixingOne best-interests decision had not been reviewed when inspectors checked the records. This was completed on the second day of the inspection.
“One record showed that a best interests decision had been made but had not been reviewed.” from the report
Limited returned survey information
minorSurveys had been sent to relatives and healthcare professionals, but none had been returned at the time of the inspection. The home also used observations and other feedback to understand people's views.
“At the time of our inspection, these had not been returned.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent errors in medicines administration records?
- 02How do you make sure every best-interests decision is reviewed when needed?
- 03How will you support my relative to communicate consent and daily choices?
- 04Which activities and community visits could my relative take part in?
- 05How will you involve our family in care-plan reviews and gather our feedback?
This inspection looked at the premises and care provided and assessed all five CQC questions; people could not share their views verbally because of their complex communication needs. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 2018 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 14 Lingwell Approach
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.