Longmead Court Nursing Home

Ratings

• Overall

  Requires improvement

• Safe

  Requires improvement

• Effective

  Requires improvement

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Date of inspection: 23 June to 17 July 2026. Longmead Court Nursing Home provides accommodation and nursing care to adults of all ages. It is registered to support up to 54 people, including people living with dementia and mental health conditions. At the time of our inspection, 52 people were living at the service. The service was also used by autistic people or people with a learning disability but was not registered as a specialist service. We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgments about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. The provider had regard to ‘Right support, right care, right culture’, however, we identified areas requiring improvement when supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people, including staff training and care plans.

We carried out this comprehensive inspection of all quality statements due to the time elapsed since the last inspection and to review improvements made since that inspection. The last inspection found the provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, person centred care and good governance. During this inspection, we found some improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulation in relation to person centred care. However, there were continued breaches of the regulation relating to safe care and treatment and good governance. The provider was also in breach of the regulation relating to people’s mental capacity.

Although systems of governance and oversight had improved, we found shortfalls in relation to the environment, recording of care, mental capacity assessments (MCA’s), care records and staff training. Systems of governance and oversight needed to improve to ensure issues were consistently identified and prompt action taken to drive continuous improvement.

We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this inspection. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded.

People's experience of this service

We spoke with people and their relatives during our site visits and by phone. Feedback from relatives was mixed relating to most aspects of the service. Whilst some people told us they were satisfied with their relatives’ care, others told us they did not feel they were listened to or involved in care planning and that communication with the service was not always clear. A relative said, “I have no real complaints, only communication. They could make it clearer on an individual basis.”

Where people could not tell us about their experience of care, we used the short observational framework for inspection (SOFI) to capture the experiences of people who use services but may not be able to express this for themselves. This showed that while staff were kind, interactions and care delivery appeared task orientated rather than person-centred. Observations throughout the inspection confirmed engagement levels were inconsistent. Feedback was generally good in relation to how staff treated people. People and relatives felt they were treated with kindness and compassion, however, there was mixed feedback about the engagement levels of some staff. A relative said “I feel carers could interact with [Person] more at times.” Whilst another said, “(Care staff) are all marvelous. Nothing but admiration for them.” Relatives were positive about the home environment and told us they felt it was clean, tidy, homely and met people’s needs. A relative said, “The environment is lovely. I’m really impressed. It looks nice. [Person’s] room is lovely.” Feedback relating to food at the home was once again mixed, with people and relatives telling us there was enough to eat, but it did not always meet the standards expected.