CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 514 Arnold Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough staff to respond to people's needs. Medicines, risks and the home were managed safely, but records of continuous support were not always complete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff were trained and supported, people received help with healthy eating and healthcare, and the home was adapted to their needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, caring and compassionate. People were treated with dignity, involved in decisions and supported to make choices, although inspectors saw some staff use pronouns instead of people's preferred names.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people had choice and control. They were supported with relationships, community activities, holidays and communication, and complaints were handled according to the policy.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a strong management team, staff understood their roles and people's views were considered. Quality checks and action plans were in place, although accident and incident analysis had needed to be put right during the inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some records needing improvement.
This was a planned inspection carried out over two days on 19 and 21 November 2019. The inspector spoke with four people, two relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records and records about safety and management.
The home was found to be safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and people received support that respected their choices and independence.
Inspectors found some shortfalls. Records did not always show that people had received all required continuous support hours. Accident and incident analysis had not been completed, although this was corrected during the inspection. The overall rating was Good, unchanged from the previous inspection published in July 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff build meaningful relationships and respect people's choices, privacy and independence.
“People were well treated by kind, caring and compassionate staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was planned around people's preferences and included support to make decisions, maintain relationships and take part in meaningful activities.
“People led active lives, with numerous, meaningful activities provided for them, in accordance with their own personal preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines when needed and records showed whether medicines were taken or refused. Staff competency was checked regularly.
“Robust medicine records were in place.” from the report
Staff training and leadership
Staff received training, supervision and development. Inspectors found a strong management team and systems to review the quality of care.
“There was a clear focus on continuous learning and improvement at this home.” from the report
Incomplete support records
needs fixingRecords did not always fully show that people had received the required hours of continuous support. A new recording system was introduced during the inspection.
“We noted these records were not always fully completed to evidence that people had received these hours as required.” from the report
Accident and incident analysis
needs fixingThe home was analysing safeguarding incidents but had not been analysing accidents and incidents. This was corrected during the inspection.
“However, analysis of accidents and incidents did not. This was rectified during the inspection.” from the report
Use of preferred names
minorSome staff referred to people as ‘he/she’ or ‘him/her’ in front of them. The manager said this would be addressed.
“A more dignified approach would be to refer to the person by their preferred name.” from the report
End of life discussions
minorThe home was not providing end of life care at the time. The manager said more needed to be done so everyone could give their views about future care.
“They told us they would review this process.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that records fully evidence all required continuous support hours?
- 02How are accidents and incidents analysed now, and how are any patterns shared with staff?
- 03How will you make sure staff use each person's preferred name when speaking about or to them?
- 04How will people and relatives be supported to discuss and record their wishes about end of life care?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing personalised care plans and the actions agreed at those reviews?
This was a planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good, and the provider information return was unfinished when the inspection began. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
514 Arnold Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, but some activities and legal conditions needed closer attention.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 7 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked records about medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, supported their health and medicines, treated them with dignity and helped them make choices and stay independent.
There were some shortfalls. One legal condition linked to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards approval had not been fully followed, although the manager took immediate action. Inspectors also found that some planned activities did not happen as expected and that activities could be more limited at weekends.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found that staff were trained and that medicines were ordered, stored and given safely.
“Records confirmed staff had received appropriate training in medicines management, checks and systems were in place for the ordering, storage and administration of medicines” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with patience, dignity, communication and independence.
“The interactions we saw between staff and people were characterised by much shared humour and warmth.” from the report
Strong quality checks
The provider had regular systems for checking care and safety, with audits by the home and senior managers.
“The provider had robust systems and processes in place that continually checked on quality and safety.” from the report
Legal condition not fully followed
needs fixingA condition attached to one person's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards approval had not been fully followed. The manager took immediate action after inspectors raised this.
“One person's care records described that conditions had been made when granting the approval but we found these had not been fully complied with.” from the report
Planned activity did not happen
needs fixingOne person was due to go to the local library, but inspectors could not establish why this did not happen or why the opportunity was not offered.
“However this person was not seen to be offered this opportunity and did not attend this activity but it was not known why not.” from the report
Fewer activities at weekends
minorA person and a relative said weekend activities could be limited because there were not enough drivers or a minibus available.
“On a Sunday I'm stuck in. No minibus, no driver. Not many drivers at all.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every condition attached to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards approval is followed?
- 02How do you make sure planned activities happen, or that people are offered a suitable alternative?
- 03What activities and transport are available at weekends, and how many staff who can drive are usually on duty?
- 04How do you make sure activities reflect each person's preferred choice rather than just a general outing?
- 05How quickly can people receive help if they have to wait for staff assistance?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and it found that the Good ratings remained in place from the December 2015 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 July 2017 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 514 Arnold Road
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
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 £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.