CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 579 Maidstone Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitor checks, protective equipment, testing, hygiene, outbreak management and visiting arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2021
579 Maidstone Road: inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 12 August 2021. It followed concerns about infection control and prevention. Inspectors looked only at these arrangements.
Inspectors found clear visitor checks, including screening questions, temperature checks, face masks, lateral flow tests and handwashing. They also found enough protective equipment, appropriate use of it, and checks that staff knew how to use it correctly.
The home was carrying out regular staff testing before entry. Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleanliness, outbreak arrangements, the infection control policy and visiting arrangements.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a usual overall quality rating or full ratings for all five questions.
Visitor safety checks
Visitors were screened on arrival and asked to use face masks, take a lateral flow test and wash their hands.
“Visitors were asked to wear face masks, undertake a lateral flow test and wash their hands.” from the report
Protective equipment
There were enough stocks of protective equipment, and staff used it appropriately. Their ability to put it on and remove it was checked.
“There were sufficient stocks of personal protective equipment (PPE) which staff were using appropriately.” from the report
Staff testing
Staff had regular testing before entering the home. Staff who tested positive could leave to isolate before coming into contact with people or colleagues.
“Staff undertook regular testing including lateral flow tests prior to entering the building where people lived.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering hygiene, social distancing, admissions, testing, outbreaks and visits.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Approach still being developed
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain what changes were needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes did the home make after inspectors signposted resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach?
- 02How are visitors currently screened, and what protective measures are required before they enter?
- 03How is staff testing managed now, and what happens if a staff member tests positive?
- 04How does the home prevent and manage infection outbreaks?
- 05How are visits currently facilitated for people living in the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the other four quality questions were not assessed and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 August 2021 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, but some planned activities did not happen.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 17 April 2018. Inspectors looked at the home, care records, staff files, medicines, rotas, audits and policies. They observed care and spoke with relatives, staff and the manager. They could not speak with everyone because some people had limited communication.
The home supported six women with learning disabilities, limited verbal communication and challenging behaviour. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable care plans and good support with health needs. Staff treated people with kindness, respect and dignity, and supported their choices.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had also been rated Good in all areas at the previous inspection in March 2016. Inspectors did identify that some people's desired activities did not happen and recommended improving meaningful activities.
People were kept safe
Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and followed individual risk plans. There were enough staff to support people safely.
“There were enough staff to support people. Staff rotas showed the registered manager took account of the level of care and support people required each day” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored safely and records showed they were given as prescribed. Inspectors found no gaps or omissions in the medicine records they checked.
“There were no gaps or omissions which indicated people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans included people's needs, preferences, communication and routines. Staff knew people well and helped them make choices where possible.
“The care people received was person centred and met their most up to date needs.” from the report
Strong oversight
The management team used regular audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the home and identify improvements.
“We found that the provider continued having a good quality assurance system and used these principles to critically review the service.” from the report
Some activities did not happen
needs fixingSome people were not always able to do the activity they wanted that day. Staff said more drivers were needed so people could go out more often. Inspectors recommended getting advice on improving meaningful activities.
“However, we observed that people had not always been able to fulfil their desired activity of the day.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure people's desired activities happen?
- 02How many drivers are now available, and how do you decide who can go out and when?
- 03How do you record and review activities that people wanted but could not do?
- 04How will you communicate with my relative if they cannot express their views verbally?
- 05How will my relative and family be involved in reviewing their support plan and healthcare needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in March 2016 had also rated every area Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 May 2018 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 579 Maidstone Road
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 2012.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway
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 £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.