CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Active Care
Loyd House
Abington, Northampton, NN1 5LL
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Loyd House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found problems with medicines, infection control, staff support and management systems.
Inspectors visited unannounced on four days in December 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, friends and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was not always safe or well managed. Medicine instructions and records were incomplete. Infection control practices were not followed consistently. Some staff training and supervision were out of date. These issues increased the risk of harm.
Inspectors also found care could be task focused, with limited meaningful interaction. People's privacy was not always protected, and mealtimes could be chaotic. However, people's care plans were detailed, their needs were generally understood, and the home supported activities, family contact and complaints well.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in April 2018 to Requires Improvement. Responsive care remained Good. The provider must send an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress with the provider and local authority.
Safeguarding
Staff knew how to recognise abuse and the registered manager had raised concerns appropriately with the local authority and CQC.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support where a higher level of care was required.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans contained information about people's communication, sensory needs and personal preferences. People and families were involved in creating and reviewing them.
“Care plans reflected a good understanding of people's needs, including relevant assessments of people's communication support and sensory needs” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to keep in touch with others, attend day services and take part in activities suited to their interests.
“People were supported to maintain relationships, follow their interests and take part in activities that were relevant to them.” from the report
Health support
Staff noticed changes in people's health and sought advice promptly. The home's multidisciplinary team worked with health professionals.
“Records showed action was taken when people's health or wellbeing deteriorated.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousAs-needed medicine protocols did not always explain when medicines should be given. Cream records were incomplete, and some staff may have carried medicines for more than one person on a tray.
“People were supported to receive their medicines in a way that was not always safe.” from the report
Infection control
seriousStaff did not consistently follow infection control rules. Inspectors saw jewellery and watches being worn, missing protective aprons and gloves not changed between people.
“People were not always protected from the risk of infection as staff were not consistently following safe infection prevention and control practices.” from the report
Staff skills and supervision
seriousSome training was out of date and supervision was not consistent. Inspectors observed poor moving and handling techniques when someone slipped down in a chair.
“The provider had failed to ensure staff were suitably trained, skilled, competent and supervised to carry out their duties.” from the report
Limited interaction
needs fixingCare was often focused on completing tasks, with little meaningful time spent with people. Mealtimes were described as functional and sometimes chaotic.
“Staff were often task focused and spent little meaningful time with people.” from the report
Privacy and records
needs fixingFood and fluid information was left in communal areas, putting confidentiality at risk. Other records also lacked important information or were not completed consistently.
“The provider and registered manager had not identified records were left in community areas putting people's confidentiality at risk.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousAudits and management systems did not identify several safety and record-keeping problems. Some staff also did not feel able to raise concerns without fear of repercussions.
“Systems and processes were not sufficient to identify the issues we found during the inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to as-needed medicine protocols, cream records and medicine administration procedures?
- 02How do you check that staff follow infection control rules during personal care and mealtimes?
- 03Which staff training and supervision sessions were overdue, and have they now been completed?
- 04How are you making mealtimes calmer and ensuring staff spend meaningful time interacting with people?
- 05How are audits now checking care records, privacy, rehabilitation plans and other safety risks?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the care provided and the premises; the report says the previous rating was from 17 April 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 2024 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.
Every inspection of Loyd House
5 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 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.
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.
Other services run by Christchurch Court Limited
2 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.