We carried out a review of the data available to us about Lansbury 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 Lansbury Court, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• Systems were in place to help prevent people, staff and visitors from catching or spreading infection. Every staff member and visitor had their temperature taken at the door and were given a mask to wear. Everyone had to use the hand santiser and complete a health declaration upon entering the home.
• The environment was clean. Additional cleaning was taking place, including of frequently touched surfaces.
• There was sufficient personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks, aprons, gloves and visors. Staff had undertaken training in infection control and how to put on and take off PPE safely.
• Staff supported people’s social and emotional wellbeing. Local visiting restrictions were in place so people were supported to keep in touch with their family members via video or telephone calls and social media messages.
• People and staff were regularly taking part in the coronavirus testing programme.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Lansbury Court Nursing Home provides personal care, in one adapted building, for up to 56 older people. At the time of the inspection 45 people were being supported by the service, some of who were living with dementia.
Following inspection the provider changed the name of the service from Lansbury Court Nursing Home to Lansbury Court.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care they received. One person said, “It’s clean, staff care for you and the food is good.”
People told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff understood their responsibilities in protecting people from harm and abuse. New members of staff had been suitably recruited. Accidents and incidents were responded to appropriately.
Staff had an in-depth understanding of people’s individual needs and wishes. The service employed enough staff to meet people's needs. Some of the staff team had worked at the service for many years. Staff had received suitable training.
There was a proactive approach to assessing and managing risk which allowed people to remain as independent as possible. Some records required additional information to guide staff on how to manage people’s specific health conditions such as diabetes or epilepsy.
We have made a recommendation about the management and recording of some people’s specific health conditions.
Medicines systems were organised, and people received their medicines when they should. Minor improvements were required to records to provide staff with clear guidance. Overall, the provider was following national guidance for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Additional information was required for the management of some people’s medicines
People saw their GP and health specialists when necessary. Nutritional and special diets were in place. People told us they really enjoyed the food provided. Records required improving to record the ideal totals for people’s eating and drinking.
We have made a recommendation for people’s eating and drinking records to be reviewed.
People received person-centred care which was delivered through the assessment and planning of their specific needs. Overall, care plans were detailed, informative and identified the care people required. There was a range of activities provided each day. Staff worked with family members and a range of professionals to ensure people were provided with the care and support they required.
People were involved in decisions about the care they received. People had 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.
The management team were open and approachable which allowed people to share their views and raise concerns. People told us if they were worried about anything they would be comfortable to talk with staff or the management team. The provider monitored the quality of the service. They sought people's views and had plans in place for continued development of the home and the care people received.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 5 October 2017). There was also an inspection on 8 April 2019 however, the report following that inspection was withdrawn as there was an issue with some of the information that we gathered.
Why we inspected
This is a planned re-inspection because of the issue highlighted above.
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.
This was the first inspection of Lansbury Court Nursing Home since Indigo Care Services Limited became the registered providers in October 2016.
Lansbury Court provides accommodation for up to 56 persons who require nursing or personal care. Some people using the service were living with dementia. The service is set in its own grounds in a residential area.
The service had a registered manager in place. ‘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.’
The provider had a robust recruitment process in place to ensure only appropriate staff were employed to work at the service to support people safely. Staffing levels were appropriate to the needs of the people using the service. The manager used a dependency tool to ascertain staffing levels.
Risks to people and the environment were assessed and control measures in place to mitigate against risks. We found these were reviewed regularly or when there was any change in circumstances. The provider ensured appropriate health and safety checks were completed. We found up to date certificates were in place which reflected that fire inspections, gas safety checks and portable appliance tests (PAT) had taken place.
The provider had a business continuity plan in place for staff guidance in case of an emergency. People had Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPS) in place which were updated regularly. Accidents and incident were recorded and analysed regularly to identify any patterns or themes that may need to be addressed.
There were systems in place to keep people safe. We found staff were aware of safeguarding processes and now to raise concerns if they felt people were at risk of abuse or poor practice.
Medicines were managed safely by staff who were appropriately trained and had their competency to administer medicines checked regularly. This meant the provider had systems in place to ensure the people who lived at Lansbury Court were safe.
Staff received an induction on commencement of their employment, which included shadowing experienced staff. The manager kept an electronic matrix to monitor staff training. Staff training was either up to date. Staff received regular supervision and an annual appraisal to support with their development.
People had access to health care professionals to maintain their general health and wellbeing. People’s nutritional needs were assessed on admission and reviewed regularly. Staff supported people to eat a healthy varied diet. Records of nutritional intake were maintained where necessary.
Steff were caring in their approach with the people they supported. Staff knew people's abilities and preferences, and were knowledgeable about how to communicate with people. Staff supported people to maintain relationships with relatives as part of their caring role.
Information about advocacy services were accessible to people and visitors. At the time of inspection no one was using an advocate.
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.
The provider used an electronic care planning system. Care plans were personalised focussing on people's assessed needs. Plans were reviewed and evaluated regularly to ensure planned care was current and up to date. Where appropriate people had emergency health care plans in place. People were supported to attend appointments designed to promote their health and well-being.
The provider had an activity planner with a range of different activities and leisure opportunities available for people, for both inside the home and out in the community.
The provider had a policy and procedure in place to manage complaints. No formal complaints had been received by the service in the last 12 months.
The provider held regular meetings with staff, people and relatives. Minutes were readily available for those not able to attend meetings.
The provider had a quality assurance process in place to ensure the quality of the care provided was monitored. People and relatives views and opinions were sought and used in the monitoring of the service.
The manager submitted notifications to CQC in a timely manner.