CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 22 Argyll Street
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People felt safe and there were enough staff. However, some risk assessments and medicines guidance lacked enough detail for all staff, especially new or agency staff, to know when and how to act.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff were trained, supported and worked with health professionals. Records did not always show that mental capacity decisions had been assessed lawfully, and some information about dietary risks needed more detail.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff built trusting relationships, treated people with kindness and respect, and supported people to make choices and achieve personal goals.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported with communication, relationships, activities, community access and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider had audits and checks, but they had not found all the shortfalls identified by inspectors. The registered manager had recently left and a new manager had not yet started.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but gaps in risk records, medicines guidance and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection in April 2023. One inspector visited on 13 and 17 April and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and external professionals.
People were generally treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them take part in activities and community life. The home was clean, there were enough staff, and medicines were stored safely. However, some records did not give staff enough detail about risks, some medicines and people's eating needs.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home had a new provider and this was its first inspection under that provider. The previous provider's rating was Outstanding, published in March 2019.
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and treated them with patience, kindness and respect. Relatives said people were happy and well cared for.
“Staff clearly knew people well and treated them with kindness and respect.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their lives and supported to pursue their own goals, interests and community activities.
“People were supported have choice, control and independence.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, relationships, wishes and goals. End of life plans also recorded people's individual wishes.
“People had person centred care plans that described their individual needs and what was important to them.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff received training, supervision and competency checks.
“People were supported by enough staff to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Community involvement
People had regular opportunities to go out, maintain relationships and take part in activities such as golf, sailing and religious or cultural events.
“There were regular and frequent opportunities for people to participate in activities of their choice.” from the report
Incomplete risk guidance
seriousSome care plans did not explain clearly enough what staff should do about known risks, including falls and unusual behaviour. This could make it harder for new or agency staff to respond safely.
“Records in place required further detail to ensure staff had clear information about how to support people in line with all known risks identified in their care plans.” from the report
Medicines information
seriousMedicines were stored safely and staff were trained, but instructions for some PRN medicines did not give enough detail about when to give them. Information about a known medicine allergy was also not included in the medicines records.
“There was not enough detail for staff to always recognise when to give this.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingPeople were supported to make choices, but records did not always show that capacity had been assessed or that decisions had been made in the person's best interests.
“Records had not always been completed where required, to demonstrate all of the principles of the MCA had been followed.” from the report
Dietary risk records
needs fixingPeople's nutritional needs were met, but records about modified diets and related risks did not always explain clearly what staff needed to do.
“These required some improvement so that information about risks and actions staff needed to take, was clear.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousThe provider's checks and audits had not identified all the problems found by inspectors. This resulted in a breach of the good governance regulation.
“The provider had systems and processes in place to assess and monitor the quality of the care people received.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to risk assessments for falls, unusual behaviour and other health conditions, and how are these checked?
- 02How do you make sure new or agency staff know when to give PRN medicines and can identify medicine allergies or signs of pain?
- 03Have all required mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now been completed and reviewed?
- 04How have records about modified diets and nutritional risks been improved?
- 05Who is currently responsible for management oversight, and what progress has been made with the CQC action plan?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 May 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.
Every inspection of 22 Argyll Street
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2022.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.