Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Plenus Care

Lindum Court

99-101 High Street, Owston Ferry, Doncaster, DN9 1RL

Requires improvementpublished 12 August 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Risks were assessed and there were enough staff, but safeguarding concerns were not always reported appropriately. There was also limited evidence of learning from accidents and incidents.
Effective?
Good
People received appropriate food, health support and staff support. Care plans reflected people's needs and choices, and staff training and supervision were in place.
Caring?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this visit.
Responsive?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this visit.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The provider's audits, action plans and incident records were not reliable enough to demonstrate that quality and safety were effectively managed. Inspectors also found a breach of Regulation 17.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, August 2023

Lindum Court rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe staffing and kind care, but weak safeguarding follow-up and quality checks created risks.

Inspectors visited without notice on 18 and 20 July 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also checked care files, medicines records, recruitment, training and quality records.

People's risks were assessed, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and infection control was good. Food, access to healthcare and staff training were also viewed positively.

However, safeguarding concerns were not always reported properly. There was limited evidence that accidents and incidents were recorded, investigated and used to improve safety. The home's governance systems were not strong enough to show that quality and safety were being managed effectively.

The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective remained Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were not used in this report.

What inspectors praised

  • Enough trained staff

    Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care. Recruitment was carried out safely, and staff had training, supervision and support.

    “There were enough staff to ensure people received safe care.” from the report

  • Food and health support

    People were offered choices at mealtimes, and staff supported those who needed help to eat and drink. Health referrals were made promptly and recommendations were followed.

    “The dining environment was calm and pleasant.” from the report

  • Medicines and infection control

    Medicines were administered as prescribed, with staff training and competency checks. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed effectively.

    “People's medicines were managed safely and administered as prescribed.” from the report

  • Positive culture

    People, relatives and staff described the home positively. Inspectors found an open, inclusive and person-centred culture.

    “The service had a positive culture that was person centred, open and inclusive.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

  • Safeguarding follow-up

    serious

    Safeguarding concerns were not always reported appropriately. Inspectors recommended that the provider review its reporting systems and practice.

    “Safeguarding concerns had not always been reported appropriately.” from the report

  • Learning from incidents

    needs fixing

    The home did not have a reliable system for recording and reviewing incidents. Inspectors found limited evidence that action was taken to improve safety.

    “There was limited evidence of learning from accidents or incidents and what, if any action was taken when things went wrong.” from the report

  • Quality checks

    serious

    Audits and action plans were not used consistently, and care records were not regularly audited. This led to a breach of the good governance regulation.

    “Systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate safety was effectively managed.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are you now reporting and following up safeguarding concerns?
  2. 02How do you record, investigate and review accidents and incidents?
  3. 03What action plan have you sent to the CQC to address the Regulation 17 breach?
  4. 04How often are care records and other quality checks now audited, and who reviews the results?
  5. 05What evidence can you show that lessons from incidents are leading to improvements?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective remained Good, while Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 August 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Lindum Court

4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.

  1. August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Lindum Court →

  2. November 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. June 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. November 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 November 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

About live-in careHow PrimeCarers works
Same provider

Other services run by Plenus Care Ltd

1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

The Manor

Gainsborough, DN21
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 9 months agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Doncaster

All in North Lincolnshire

Rose Meadow

Doncaster, DN10 · 6.6 km
Good
Residential
Rated 5 months agocare home

Beechcroft House

Doncaster, DN9 · 6.7 km
Not yet rated
ResidentialDementia
Not yet ratedcare home

The Manor

Gainsborough, DN21 · 7.4 km
Requires improvement
ResidentialDementia
Rated 9 months agocare home