Longueville Court

Updated 9 March 2021

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 23 February 2021 and was announced. The inspection was announced prior to us entering the home, so we could ensure that measures were in place to support an inspection and manage any infection control risks. We also asked the provider to send us infection prevention and control policies and audit findings.

Updated 9 March 2021

About the service:

Longueville Court provides accommodation, nursing, and personal care for up to 109 adults, some of whom may be living with dementia. It also registered to provide the regulated activity treatment, disease, disorder and injury. At the time of our inspection there were 96 people living at the service. The service is located in a village location outside of the city of Peterborough. People lived in four areas of the home depending on their needs: Robin unit, Kingfisher unit, Memory Lane and Skylark unit.

People’s experience of using this service:

Staff worked well together to ensure people were safe and well cared for. They knew the people they cared for well and understood, and met, their needs. People were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained and confident to recognise and report any concerns. Staff assessed and minimised any potential risks to people. Staff followed the provider’s procedures to prevent the spread of infection and reduce the risk of cross contamination. Staff managed people’s medicines safely and effectively.

The provider had systems in place to make sure they only employed staff once they had checked they were suitable to work with people who used the service. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. The registered manager reviewed staffing levels and people needs regularly. People received care from staff who were trained and well supported to meet people’s assessed needs.

Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink. They worked well with external professionals to support people to keep as well and healthy as possible.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

Staff were caring and respectful when they spoke with, and about, people. They supported people to develop their independence. They supported people in a person-centred way and met each person’s specific needs. People and their relatives were involved in their, or their family member's, care reviews. They and contributed to their care plans and how their care was delivered.

People’s care plans were detailed and provided staff guidance on how to meet each person’s needs. People’s needs were constantly reviewed, and their care was adapted as required. Staff supported people with their interests and to take part in socially and culturally relevant activities. People benefitted from strong links staff had forged with the local community. Staff worked closely with people, their relatives, and external healthcare professionals to ensure people’s end of life needs and wishes were supported and met.

People and their relatives felt able to raise concerns which the registered manager addressed. The registered manager and staff were committed to providing a high-quality and person-centred service. Communication with people, their relatives, and professionals was open and transparent. The provider and registered manager had embedded governance systems in place that helped ensure that staff delivered a high-quality service, which met people’s needs and kept them safe.

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was Good (published 20 June 2017).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.