CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 9 Allenby Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place, including safe use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and social distancing.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control measures during a targeted Covid-19 inspection.
The inspection took place on 10 August 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted visit looking only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found measures to reduce infection risks. These included visitor checks, temperature records, hand gel, face masks, social distancing signs, clean premises and separate laundry arrangements.
The home had enough protective equipment. Staff used it during personal care, and people using the service and staff were tested for Covid-19. The inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated result for safety.
Good infection control
The home had several measures to reduce the risk of infection for visitors, staff and people living there.
“We were assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
Protective equipment
Protective equipment was available in bedrooms and staff used appropriate equipment during personal care.
“Staff wore appropriate items of PPE when they assisted people with personal care and wore face masks at all times.” from the report
Clean environment
Staff cleaned and disinfected surfaces regularly, with a deep clean taking place at night.
“The premises were kept clean by staff. Surfaces were disinfected regularly and wiped down.” from the report
Testing and planning
People using the service and staff were tested for Covid-19. The infection control policy had been updated for the risks from Covid-19.
“There was a detailed infection prevention and control policy in place which had been updated to take into account the risks from Covid-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 10 August 2020?
- 02How do you currently manage visitors, including temperature checks, face masks and hand hygiene?
- 03How do you make sure there is enough PPE available for staff and people using the service?
- 04How often are communal areas and frequently touched surfaces cleaned and disinfected?
- 05What are the current arrangements for Covid-19 or other infection testing for staff and people using the service?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 August 2020 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, April 2020
9 Allenby Road was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some records needing clearer detail.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 5 March 2020. One inspector spoke with two people, the manager and staff, and later contacted three relatives. The inspector also checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records, accident records and the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines management, good infection control, appropriate healthcare support and a clean, well-maintained environment.
People were treated with dignity and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities. Relatives gave very positive feedback. However, some records did not clearly show people's choices, preferences or contributions, and one care plan had not been updated after a review.
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to support people, including one-to-one support where needed. Recruitment checks and staff training were in place.
“There were enough staff to provide the support people needed. Staff were trained and supervised to make sure they met people's needs effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking patiently and politely. Relatives and people using the service gave very positive feedback about the care.
“We saw staff treated people with respect. They answered questions patiently and politely and spoke in a professional manner” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to make choices, learn skills and do things for themselves. The home also provided activities and accessible outdoor space.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Good management
The home had a registered manager, clear staff roles and regular checks on the quality and safety of care. Staff worked well as a team.
“There were systems to monitor the quality of people's care to make sure it was effective and safe.” from the report
Safe environment
The building was clean, comfortable and maintained well. It had adaptations such as ceiling hoists, a walk-in shower and an accessible garden.
“The premises had been well-maintained and provided a safe and comfortable environment for people.” from the report
Choices not always recorded
needs fixingCare plans did not always show that people had been asked about their choices and preferences, such as staff gender or important routines. Inspectors made a recommendation to improve this.
“It was not always clear if people had been asked about their choices and preferences for how they wished to be cared for.” from the report
Communication records
needs fixingMeeting notes did not show how people with communication difficulties contributed or agreed with decisions. Inspectors recommended better recording of their views.
“Minutes of residents' meetings did not show how people with communication difficulties contributed to the meetings or showed agreement with discussions.” from the report
Care plan update
minorOne person's care plan had not been updated after a September 2019 review. This was brought to the manager's attention for correction.
“We noted one person's care plan had not been updated after their review in September 2019.” from the report
Alternative communication training
needs fixingAt the visit, the provider had not yet made the improvement previously recommended about training more staff in alternative communication methods. Training dates were confirmed after the visit.
“At the time of our visit, the provider had not made improvement.” from the report
- 01How do you record my relative's choices, preferences, routines and preferred staff gender in their care plan?
- 02How will you record the views and agreement of someone who has communication difficulties?
- 03Has the care plan update identified in the report been completed, and how quickly are future reviews added to care plans?
- 04What training have staff completed in alternative communication methods, and how is that used in daily care?
- 05How will staffing be arranged if my relative needs one-to-one or nursing support during a respite stay?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the premises; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 2020 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 9 Allenby Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 April 2017.
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
83 live-in carers within about an hour of Windsor and Maidenhead
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.