You are here

Lindau Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 19 September 2017

This inspection took place on 26 and 27 July 2017 and was unannounced.

Lindau Residential Home is registered to provide nursing; personal care and accommodation for up to 37 people. There were 27 people using the service during our inspection; who were living with a range of health and support needs. These included; diabetes, catheter care and people who needed to be nursed in bed.

Lindau Residential Home is a large detached house situated in a residential area just outside New Romney. The service had a large communal lounge available with comfortable seating and a TV for people and separate, quieter areas. There was a secure enclosed garden to the rear of the premises.

The previous inspection on 2 and 3 June 2016 found three breaches of our regulations, an overall rating of requires improvement was given at that inspection. The provider had not ensured actions designed to address risk had been followed through into practice. This specifically related to people that required special air mattresses to help prevent pressure wounds. Medicines had not been administered, recorded, stored or managed in a safe way which posed a risk to the safety of people. People’s health care had not been managed effectively, specifically in relation to catheter care, drinks that required thickener, and wound care records. Not all audits had effectively picked up concerns which we had found during the inspection specifically in relation to the management of medicines. The provider had resolved the issues raised at the previous inspection which were no longer a concern at this inspection.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the care Quality Commission to manage the service. 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.

Although the provider had displayed their latest ratings at the premises, they had failed to display their latest CQC inspection report ratings on their website which is a legal requirement. We asked the provider to address this and we will follow this up.

There were safe processes for storing, administering and returning medicines. People received their medicines in a person centred and appropriate way.

Accidents and incidents had been properly recorded and audited for trends to try to prevent further accidents. Risks to people were well monitored and action was taken when concerns were identified. People had individual personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) that staff could follow to ensure people were supported to leave the service in the most appropriate way in the event of a fire.

Appropriate checks were made to keep people safe and safety checks were made regularly on equipment and the environment. There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Employment checks had been made to ensure staff were of good character and suitable for their roles.

Robust safeguarding and whistleblowing guidance and contact information was available for staff to refer to should they need to raise concerns about people’s safety. Staff had good understanding about their responsibilities in relation to this.

The registered manager demonstrated a clear understanding of the process that must be followed if people were deemed to lack capacity to make their own decisions and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. They ensured people’s rights were protected by meeting the requirements of the Act.

Peoples health needs were well monitored and responded to promptly. External professional healthcare advice was sought and referrals made in a timely way. Staff had the knowledge and skills to complete their roles effectively. Staff had received training in mandatory and other areas.

People were supported to eat and drink and had choice around their meals.

Staff demonstrated caring attitudes towards people and spoke to them in a dignified and respectful way. Staff co

Inspection areas



Updated 19 September 2017

The service was safe.

People received their medicines safely. Risk had been assessed and action taken to reduce the risk of harm people may be exposed to.

Safeguarding processes were in place to help protect people from harm.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and audited to identify patterns.

There were enough staff to support people and meet their individual needs. Recruitment processes were in place to protect people.



Updated 19 September 2017

The service was effective.

The provider was meeting the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff felt supported and listened to. They had appropriate training to support people with their individual needs.

Peoples health needs were responded to and supported well.

People were supported to make their own choices around their food and drink. People�s dietary preferences were respected.



Updated 19 September 2017

The service was caring.

Staff spoke to people kindly and in a respectful and dignified way.

People were responded to quickly and staff helped people manage their anxieties in a positive way.

Staff respected people�s privacy and encouraged them to make their own choices.



Updated 19 September 2017

The service was responsive.

Activities were available for people to participate in both within the service and outside.

People benefited from care plans which were meaningful, informative and a reflection of how support was offered in practice.

There was a complaints procedure available for people should they be unhappy with any aspect of their care or treatment.



Updated 19 September 2017

The service was well-led.

The provider had failed to display their latest CQC inspection report rating on their website which is a legal requirement. We asked the provider to address this and we will follow this up.

Audits and reviews were made to check that people received safe and appropriate care and support. Action was taken from audits to improve the lives of the people.

People�s feedback was sought and listened. Following feedback changes were made to improve the outcomes people experienced.

The registered manager had good oversight of the service and there was a clearly embedded culture, staff had good attitudes and understood their roles well.