CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 23 Church Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Risks were assessed so people could remain independent, although inspectors found one medicine administration had not been signed for and some creams had not been dated when opened.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, supervision and support needed for their roles. People received suitable food, drink and healthcare, but food and drink records were not always completed in full.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care planning and decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's needs, interests and choices. People took part in activities, trips and work or day-centre opportunities, and could raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager and systems to monitor quality and make improvements. Relatives found management open and approachable, and staff felt their ideas were listened to.
What inspectors found, March 2019
19-23 Church Street was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records needing improvement.
This was a planned inspection. It was unannounced and one inspector visited the home. The inspector spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, reviewed care records and other documents, and observed care.
The home supported nine people with learning disabilities, with space for up to ten. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by trained staff, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. People could take part in activities and use services in the local community.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection in 2016. Inspectors found some medicine, food and drink records were incomplete, and end of life plans had not yet been prepared for people.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had completed safeguarding training and risks were managed while supporting people to remain independent.
“People felt safe living at the service and relatives felt they were safe living there.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's communication, histories and preferences. They supported people with kindness, dignity and respect.
“People were supported by staff who valued them and knew them well.” from the report
Choice and activities
People helped choose meals, holidays and activities. They were supported to follow their interests and take part in community activities.
“People were able to take part in meaningful activities in line with their own hobbies and interests.” from the report
Good management
Inspectors found the home well managed, with regular checks on care quality. Staff and relatives said managers were approachable and listened to suggestions.
“Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and the care provided.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome creams had not been dated when opened, and one medicine administration had not been signed for. The deputy manager dealt with these issues during the inspection.
“We did find some creams had not been dated when opened and one administration of a medicine had not been signed for.” from the report
Food and drink records
needs fixingRecords of what people ate and drank were not always fully completed. The manager said this would be raised with staff.
“A record was made of what each person had to eat and drink each day, however these records were not always completed in full.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. The manager said end of life support plans had not yet been prepared for people living at the home.
“The registered manager said they had not yet prepared end of life support plans for people who used the service” from the report
Accessible information review
minorInformation was available in different formats, but the manager said support plans still needed to be reviewed to check they fully met accessible information requirements.
“The registered manager told us they were planning to review people's support plans to ensure they were fully complying with the AIS.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine creams are dated when opened and that every administration is signed for?
- 02How do you make sure food and drink records are completed fully for each person?
- 03Have end of life support plans now been prepared for people living at the home?
- 04How have you reviewed support plans to meet people's different communication and accessible information needs?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and deciding activities and daily routines?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 2019 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 23 Church Street
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.