CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 74 Old Ford End
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but person-centred support, leadership and some care arrangements needed significant improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 March, 11 March and 15 April 2019. The inspector visited the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and reviewed care files, staff records, incidents, complaints and quality checks.
People were generally safe and treated kindly. Medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, staff understood safeguarding, and people had positive relationships with staff. However, staffing changes affected continuity, and one staffing gap reduced people's activities and left some people alone for extended periods.
The main concerns were that activities were not regular or personalised, some care plans and risk guidance lacked important detail, and people and relatives were not always involved in decisions. The provider was in breach of three regulations. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 7 April 2016, to Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines systems
The provider had systems for safe medicines management, including staff training and competency checks. Inspectors found medicines storage and stock records were correct.
“The provider implemented safe systems for the management of medicines which included staff training and assessments of staff competency checks.” from the report
Kind staff relationships
Inspectors saw staff interacting warmly and positively with people. Relatives also said staff were kind and caring.
“We saw staff responding to people in a very friendly manner being caring and kind and interacted well.” from the report
Clean and adapted home
The home was clean and odour-free. Its layout and garden had been adapted to support people's mobility and individual needs.
“We saw the house was clean, fresh and odour free throughout our visit.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and could explain how they would report concerns.
“Staff were aware of how to keep people safe.” from the report
Limited meaningful activities
needs fixingActivities were not consistently personalised, varied or regular. Some plans were generic, and people could spend several days mainly listening to the radio or watching television.
“Overall, we found activities were not very person centred or varied.” from the report
Incomplete risk and care information
seriousSome risk assessments and care plans did not explain clearly enough how staff should support people. One person's care plan was not fully completed for the first three months after moving in.
“The new plans had clear guidance as to how staff should support people in most places but not in others.” from the report
Dignity during meals
needs fixingThe lunch environment was noisy and disorganised. Inspectors saw a person use their apron to wipe their mouth, while another person's face and neck were wiped with a tea towel.
“There were no napkins on the table and we saw one person using the apron they were wearing to wipe their mouth.” from the report
Staffing continuity
seriousThere had been several staff changes, which worried relatives. On the inspection day the home was short of one staff member, and this affected activities and meant some people were alone for extended periods.
“The staffing levels were based on people's assessed needs. On the day of the inspection the service was short of one staff member.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousQuality checks did not identify all the problems found by inspectors. The registered manager lacked some knowledge of their responsibilities, and improvements were not always maintained.
“The registered manager had a lack of oversight and good governance in relation to systems and processes which failed to identify issues found during this inspection.” from the report
- 01What specific activities are now planned for each person, and how do you check that they are meaningful and happen regularly?
- 02How do current care plans explain each person's communication, risks, preferences and the support staff must provide?
- 03How do you cover staff shortages and reduce the effect of staff changes on continuity of care?
- 04What has been done to improve dignity and choice during meals?
- 05How does the provider now check that improvements are made and remain in place?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and looked at both the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 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 74 Old Ford End
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2019Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.