CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 6 Northumberland Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm through risk assessments, safety checks and reviews of accidents and incidents. Staff were available in sufficient numbers, and medicines and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, action plans and systems for sharing improvements. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management and culture.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care and clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 27 July 2022. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a professional, and checked care, medicine, recruitment, safety and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and people felt safe. The home also had checks for fire safety, equipment, infection control and accidents.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement. New admission arrangements were being used, and better systems were in place to monitor quality and act on problems.
This inspection only checked Safe and Well-led. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Risk management
Risk assessments covered areas such as behaviour, community safety, medicines and use of the cooker. They were reviewed to reflect people's needs.
“Risk assessments were regularly reviewed to accurately reflect people's needs and ensure staff provided appropriate levels of support.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. A consistent core team knew the people living at the home well.
“There was a core staff team who knew people well and provided consistency and experience to the people living at the service.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff had medicine training and competency checks. Records included people's preferences and allergies, and there was a plan to support one person to regain independence with medicines.
“People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to administer, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its monitoring, audits and action plans since the previous inspection. Leaders shared changes with staff and responded openly during the inspection.
“Action plans ensured tasks were completed and changes and improvements were shared with the staff team.” from the report
Staff records still being reviewed
minorThe management team had identified that staff files needed further review and electronic filing. This work was still in progress during the inspection.
“The management team had identified that staff files needed to be reviewed and filed electronically. This was in progress at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Staff meetings had been disrupted
minorStaff meetings had been difficult to hold during the pressures of COVID-19. Meetings were being planned again, so families may wish to ask how regular team communication is now.
“It had been difficult to hold staff meetings due to the pressures of Covid 19, but these were now being planned again.” from the report
- 01How will you use the new pre-admission information process to understand and support my relative's individual needs?
- 02How often will my relative's risk assessments be reviewed, and how will changes be shared with staff?
- 03What progress has been made with reviewing and electronically filing staff records?
- 04How often are staff meetings now being held, and how are important changes shared with the team?
- 05How will you support my relative if they want to manage their own medicines?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 2022 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, September 2021
6 Northumberland Road rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective support but gaps in risk management and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 August 2021. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, staff and the manager. They reviewed care plans, staff files, medicines records, incident records, complaints and quality checks.
People were generally treated with kindness and respect. Staff were trained, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and people received personalised support. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.
Inspectors found that some risks had not been properly assessed or reviewed. Incident records were not always used to learn lessons, and information about one new person's needs had not been passed on properly. Quality checks had failed to identify these problems. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with breaches of Regulations 12 and 17.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given by trained staff and records showed they were administered as prescribed. There were also arrangements for creams, as-needed medicines and medicines people managed themselves.
“The MARs we reviewed showed that people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Skilled staff team
Inspectors found enough suitably trained and skilled staff. Training covered areas including mental health, medicines, safeguarding, infection control and first aid.
“There were enough suitably trained and skilled staff to support people safely.” from the report
Independence and everyday choices
People could use the kitchen, prepare food, go to local shops and follow their own interests. Staff supported people to take responsibility for parts of their care where appropriate.
“People's independence was encouraged and supported. People told us how they went out independently to local shops in the community.” from the report
Risk assessments were incomplete
seriousSome risks were recorded in daily notes but did not have formal assessments explaining triggers and how staff should respond. The report says this increased the risk of harm.
“Risks assessments were not always completed to guide staff in how to safely support people.” from the report
Incidents were not used consistently for learning
seriousIncidents were not always recorded, analysed or shared with staff. This meant the home could miss patterns and opportunities to improve safety.
“Incidents were not always being reviewed for lessons learned and shared with the staff team to improve safety.” from the report
Weak pre-admission planning
needs fixingOne person arrived with little information about their needs and staff on duty had not been told in advance. CQC recommended a stronger pre-admission process.
“This conveyed a lack of pre admission planning and liaison between the service and the organisation they came from.” from the report
Quality checks did not find problems
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not identify the shortfalls found by inspectors. A significant amount of documentation was also not available during the site visit.
“Systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service were not effective.” from the report
- 01How are each person's risks assessed, updated and explained to all staff?
- 02How are accidents, incidents and angry or concerning behaviour recorded, reviewed and shared so lessons are learned?
- 03What information do you require before a person moves in, and how do you make sure staff know their needs on the day of admission?
- 04What action has been completed since this inspection to improve the quality assurance system?
- 05How do you keep records about a person's mental capacity clear and consistent?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; the previous inspection was published in December 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 September 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.
Every inspection of 6 Northumberland Road
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 November 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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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 £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.