CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 63 Collier Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines practice and good safeguarding arrangements. Incidents were reviewed and used to make changes, although the last formal review of all incident charts had been completed in January 2018.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had enough nutritious food and good support with healthcare appointments. Staff received training in autism, positive behavioural support, epilepsy and other relevant subjects, although one new staff member was behind with the Care Certificate.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respected their privacy and understood their individual needs. People were supported to stay in touch with families and to develop everyday skills.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with communication, changes to routines, community activities and personal goals, including one person's first holiday.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found stable leadership, regular audits, staff meetings and good contact with families and professionals. The provider and managers used positive behavioural support and reviewed restrictions and medicines.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with no serious risks or concerns identified.
This was an announced comprehensive inspection on 22 and 27 November 2018. One inspector spoke with two people, observed care, and spoke with the manager and staff. Records, care plans, rotas, training and quality checks were also reviewed.
The home supported three people with learning disabilities, including people with autism, complex needs and different communication methods. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines practice, good health support and detailed plans that reflected people's individual needs.
People were treated with dignity and kindness. They were supported to make choices, stay in contact with family, use local services and take part in activities they enjoyed. Inspectors also found strong management systems and good links with health and social care professionals.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Personalised support
Staff understood people's complex needs and adapted communication, routines and activities to each person. Care plans were updated when needs changed.
“People's communication needs had been thoroughly assessed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed a calm home where staff knew people well, communicated in ways they understood and respected their privacy.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Safety and medicines
There were enough staff, appropriate recruitment checks and clear arrangements for safeguarding, incidents and medicines.
“People's medicines were managed so they received them safely.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, use local facilities, keep in touch with family and build everyday skills. Activities reflected their interests and wishes.
“People were encouraged and enabled to make choices.” from the report
Positive progress
A carefully planned behavioural support approach reduced one person's monthly incidents from 28 to three. Restrictions were also relaxed over time.
“There was evidence lessons were learned and the approach was effective as the number of times incidents had occurred a month went from 28 to three.” from the report
One staff training record was behind
needs fixingOne new staff member had not completed the Care Certificate on time. The home set a deadline and introduced an action plan for extra support and monitoring.
“One staff member was behind in completing this training and a deadline had been set for completion.” from the report
Formal incident review was not recent
minorThe last formal review of all incident charts had been completed in January 2018, although staff and professionals continued to analyse incidents and inspectors found no impact on people's safety.
“Although the incident reports were analysed regularly by staff and professionals, the last formal review had been completed in January 2018.” from the report
People's survey was basic
minorThe survey for people gave them a chance to say whether they were happy, but inspectors described it as very basic.
“The survey for people was very basic but ensured people were given an opportunity to say if they were happy with the care and support they received.” from the report
- 01How will you ensure all new staff complete the Care Certificate and receive the support described in the action plan?
- 02When was the most recent formal review of all incident charts, and what changes followed it?
- 03How will you communicate with my relative if they use gestures, body language, Makaton or visual symbols?
- 04How will you support my relative to make choices, stay in contact with family and take part in activities outside the home?
- 05What restrictions, if any, would apply to my relative, and how are these reviewed and reduced over time?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 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.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in oversight and risk assessment.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 12 February 2018. Inspectors spoke with staff, the manager and two relatives. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment files, audits and safety records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, kind support and care that was tailored to people's needs. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, see relatives and join activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. The manager did not always identify, report or assess risks properly. Inspectors found that one possible safeguarding incident had not been recognised and that a choking risk assessment was incomplete. The overall rating stayed Good, and the home had maintained its Good overall rating from August 2015.
Enough familiar staff
Relatives said people were safe and well supported. Inspectors saw consistent staffing, including one-to-one and two-to-one support where needed.
“Relatives told us that people were well supported by enough staff, who knew people well.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records were clear and accurate. Staff were trained, medicines were stored securely and audits were used to check the process.
“Medicines continued to be managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised activities and choices
People helped plan meals and activities and were supported to go out, see relatives and develop their independence.
“People continued to receive personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Possible safeguarding incident not recognised promptly
seriousOne possible safeguarding incident was recorded by a senior staff member but was not reviewed by the manager at the time. Inspectors said the provider did not respond appropriately to the risk.
“One potential safeguarding incident had not been identified and reported appropriately by the registered manager.” from the report
Choking risk assessment incomplete
seriousA person with a possible choking risk had not been fully assessed or monitored. The report says the assessment was completed and a referral made after the inspection.
“A person with a potential choking risk had not been appropriately assessed and monitored.” from the report
Future care planning unfinished
needs fixingThe home had started discussing people's wishes as they grew older and their end-of-life preferences, but this work was not complete at the inspection.
“The registered manager had started to discuss with people about the care they wanted as they got older and where they wanted to be at the end of their life, however the process had not been completed.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure all possible safeguarding incidents are identified, reported and reviewed promptly?
- 02What changes were made after the incomplete choking risk assessment was found, and how is the person's safety now monitored?
- 03How do you check that the manager has enough oversight of risks when managing several care homes?
- 04When will each person's wishes about future and end-of-life care be completed and reviewed?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved when care plans or risk assessments change?
This was a comprehensive inspection of all five key questions, covering the care provided, the premises and how the home was managed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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 63 Collier Road
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 May 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.