We carried out a review of the data available to us about Longueville Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Longueville Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Visitors could visit their family member/friend by appointment using the two outside visiting pods. There was a screen, an intercom system and an emergency call bell in place. Gaps between each visit helped prevent people encountering other visitors, staff or people from the home. Gaps between visits were also used to clean the pod. End of life visits also took place in the home. Staff helped people to use computer tablets to video call family and friends to promote their social well-being.
On arrival into the building, external visitors including a health or social care visitor waited to enter in line with the providers meet and greet protocol. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) would be made available if needed.
People isolated in their rooms for 14 days, when returning from an external health appointment or were recently admitted into the home. For people who lacked capacity to understand self-isolation, additional staff would be employed to support this.
Staff socially distanced when on their break. Staff changed into their work clothes in the staff room and put on and took off their PPE before starting work. They had a separate entrance and exit to use instead of the main entrance. They also used a set of back stairs to get to the floor (called a community) they would be working on. These stairs were only used by staff.
There was an infection control lead within the home. Staff had infection prevention and control training from the clinical commissioning group (CCG). They also had internal COVID-19 training. Handwashing/hand hygiene spot checks were completed on staff.
Communal areas seen appeared uncluttered to aid with effective cleaning. Furniture in communal areas had been spread out to promote social distancing. Windows were opened to promote good ventilation.
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.
There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
This inspection was carried out on 16 May 2017 and was an unannounced inspection. At the last inspection on 14 August 2014, the service was rated as ‘good.’ At this inspection we found the service remained ‘good.’
Staff assisted people in a way that supported their safety and people were looked after by staff in a kind and caring manner. Staff encouraged people to make their own choices. People’s privacy and dignity were promoted by staff and people were treated with respect.
Staff were knowledgeable of how to report incidents of harm and poor care. Accidents and incidents were identified and recorded. Actions were taken to, as far as possible, reduce the risk of recurrence.
People and their relatives/ advocates were involved in the setting up and agreement of their/their family members care plans. People’s care arrangements took account of people’s wishes including their likes and dislikes. Care plans informed staff of people’s individual needs and recorded people’s choices, and any assistance they required. Risks to people who lived at the service were identified, and plans were put into place by staff to minimise and monitor these risks. This enabled people to live as safe and independent a life as possible.
People were looked after by enough, suitably qualified staff to support them safely with their individual needs. Staff enjoyed their work and were supported and managed to look after people. Staff understood people’s needs and they were trained to provide effective, safe care. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported to maintain their skills by way of supervision and appraisals. Pre-employment checks were completed on new staff members before they were deemed to be suitable to look after people living at the service.
People were supported to take their medicines as prescribed and medicines were safely managed by staff whose competency had been assessed. Where there had been any errors in the administration of people’s medicines, these had been identified and dealt with appropriately.
The service was flexible and responsive to people’s needs. People maintained contact with their relatives and friends and staff encouraged people to maintain their links with the local community.
People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and fluids. Staff monitored people’s health and well-being needs and acted upon issues identified. They also assisted people to access a range of external health care services when needed and their individual health needs were met.
There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and acted upon and where possible resolved to the complainants satisfaction.
People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice
Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly monitored. People who lived at the service, their relatives and staff were encouraged to share their views and feedback about the quality of the care and support provided and actions were taken as a result to drive forward any improvements required.
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 was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.
This inspection was unannounced which meant the provider and staff did not know we were visiting. The last inspection took place on 4 March 2014 during which we found there were no breaches in the regulations.
Longueville Court provided nursing and personal care for up to 105 older people, some of whom may live with dementia. At the time of our inspection 99 people lived at the home.
People lived in one of four areas within the home; Robin unit, Kingfisher unit, Memory Lane and Skylark unit.
The home is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. At the time of our inspection a registered manager was employed at the service.
CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of the inspection two people who used the service had their freedom restricted and the provider had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 DoLS.
People who lived in the home, and their relatives told us they were happy with the care and support they received. People said they felt safe and were treated with respect. We saw that care arrangements took account of people’s wishes, preferences, likes and dislikes.
Staff looked after people in a warm and caring manner. We saw examples of care which helped people to feel comfortable and relaxed and maintain as much independence as they were able to.
Staff understood people’s needs, wishes and preferences. They were appropriately trained to provide effective and safe and care which met people’s individual needs. They understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported to maintain and develop their skills by way of regular supervision and training.
People we spoke with and their relatives told us they were able to raise any issues or concerns and action was taken to address them.
Arrangements were in place to ensure the quality of the service provided for people was regularly assessed and monitored. People who lived in the home, and their relatives said they felt involved in the way the home was run and were encouraged to express their views and opinions about the services provided.
People told us that they were treated well and with respect. We found no person wearing clothing that belonged to other people who used the service.
There were effective management systems in place to ensure that people's health risks of choking and falling were minimised. People who we spoke with had positive comments to make about the standard and quality of the support and care provided. Work was in progress to ensure that valuing people's choices about their preferred times of going to bed and getting up, would improve.
People were protected from the health risks associated with the taking of inadequate food and drink. People told us that the food was very good and confirmed that they always had plenty to eat and drink.
People who we spoke with had no concerns about the standard of cleaning of the home. There were effective systems in place to make sure people lived in a clean and comfortable home.
Equipment was safe and available to meet people's individual health and safety needs. People told us that they were satisfied with how they were supported with the use of equipment.
We looked at seven out of 99 care plans that clearly explained how a person preferred to be supported. We saw information about the choices that people who used the service had made, showing people were fully consulted at every stage.
We spoke with a staff member who was able to describe the process for obtaining, storing, administering and disposing of medicines and found that people who used the service were protected from the unsafe use and management of medicines.
We spoke with people who used the service and four visitors, including a healthcare professional about the care staff. Visitors told us that staff did not take long to answer a call bell and they did not hear bells ringing around the home for any length of time on their visits.
how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. They also told us about the quality and choice of food and drink available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met. The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector, a practising professional (with specific care of the older person experience) and an "expert by experience" (people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective).
We spoke with seven people who were using this service. We also spoke to four visitors of people who were using this service.
People spoken with stated that they were impressed with the level of care given by the service, one person said, 'I saw the doctor this morning, they are very good here". Another person told us, 'No complaints. The staff are very pleasant. If I want to go into the garden I just go. They went on to say, "Nobody messes you about. I find it very relaxing and comfortable. They also told us that, "There is no sort of activity much apart from occasional quizzes and I've been on an outing.' Another person told us that, "The staff are excellent.'
Four people commented favourably about the meals and drinks provided. One person told us 'I would say very good. Quite surprising! food is part of my life. You can bring a bottle of wine or glass of beer here.' Another person stated that, 'The food's good.' Someone else reported 'You can have wine, apple or cranberry juice. The food is marvellous here. There's a very good chef. I think this is one of the best homes in Peterborough.' Someone else told us 'If I'm thirsty I just help myself, there is a drink dispenser available for people to use".
One person also told us that "l am bored here" and none of the people we spoke with were aware of their written care plans but told us that they had discussions with staff about their care needs and personal preferences
The visitors that we spoke with were satisfied with the levels of care and attention shown to their relative. For example one person told us that, "Staff are never less than courteous and it must be challenging. I've never heard a cross word, and allowing the dogs to visit regularly is a huge tonic to the people living here". Another person told us that they were very pleased with how their relative was cared for and that they were relieved that, "They had found this service for their loved one". All the visitors spoken with confirmed that they were involved as needed in their relative's care plan.
The people we spoke with told us that there was always enough staff on duty and that they do not have to wait long before the staff respond to their call for assistance. One person said that the most that they had to wait, for staff to come to them, was 'Five to ten minutes.'
A person, who lives at the home, said that they were 'Always having a joke and a laugh' with the staff, telling us that the staff had time for this personal interaction. In one of the units we saw that some of the people were smiling as they were given the time, and opportunity, to take part in a baking activity.