CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 92 North Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection prevention and control arrangements, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting and outbreak management.
- 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, April 2021
92 North Street had good infection control practice, but this targeted inspection was inspected but not rated.
Inspectors visited on 25 March 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic. It looked at infection prevention and control in the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, supporting testing, following shielding and social distancing rules, and keeping the premises clean. They also found that visiting arrangements followed government guidance.
The home supported people to understand COVID-19 and how to stay safe. The overall service and Safe question were recorded as inspected but not rated, so this report is not a full quality rating of the home.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections and managing risks through PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak planning.
“We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home followed government guidance for visits and had equipment in the visiting room that could be cleaned and sanitised.
“The registered manager adhered to the government guidance on care home visits and had purchased equipment for the visiting room which could be easily and readily cleaned and sanitised.” from the report
Supporting people to stay safe
Staff helped people understand COVID-19 and the risks linked to it, so people had a greater understanding of how to stay safe.
“The staff team had supported people to learn about COVID-19 and the associated risks.” from the report
Staff teamwork
Staff encouraged each other to wear PPE correctly. The manager also shared learning about COVID-19 with other managers.
“Staff have been encouraging and supporting one another about appropriate and correct wearing of PPE to mitigate the risk of errors.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now manage visits, and is the visiting room equipment still easy to clean and sanitise?
- 02How do you check that staff are wearing PPE correctly and safely?
- 03How do you provide testing for people living in the home and for staff?
- 04How do you help people understand infection risks and how to keep themselves safe?
- 05Can you explain the wider quality ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, which this inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not assess the other four key questions and gave no overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 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, April 2019
92 North Street is rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support and clear improvements, but some one-to-one support had not been provided in full.
Inspectors visited on 11 and 13 March 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also reviewed care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported safely, treated with kindness and involved in their care. Staff understood people's needs and helped them take part in activities and community life.
This was a follow-up to a Requires Improvement rating in 2017. Inspectors found improvements in risk management, care planning, support with decision-making and quality checks. They also found some smaller shortfalls, including missed one-to-one support and one late statutory notification.
Safe care
Staff understood people's risks and how to protect them. Medicines were handled by competent staff and records were checked.
“People received support with the medicines. Regular checks were undertaken to ensure people received the correct medicines by staff who were competent to support them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives said staff were caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff reassure people when they were anxious.
“There were caring interactions between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes and communication needs. Staff supported activities, trips and work that mattered to individuals.
“People received care that was personalised to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its quality checks and management arrangements since the previous inspection. Staff said they felt supported and able to suggest improvements.
“We found the provider had made improvements to the way it monitored the quality of the service.” from the report
Some planned support was missed
needs fixingSome people who were commissioned to receive one-to-one community support had not received the full amount. The provider was planning resources to address this.
“However, some people had not received their full amount of support.” from the report
Garden furniture needed repair
minorThe outdoor furniture was in poor repair. The manager had identified this and planned improvements.
“There was a level garden area with some outdoor furniture which people used, however the furniture was in poor repair.” from the report
Legal representatives were not clearly recorded
needs fixingCare plans did not make clear whether people had a legal representative to support decisions. Senior staff agreed to obtain more training.
“It was not clear on people's care plans if they had a legal representative to support them to make decisions.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure people receive all of their planned one-to-one community support?
- 02Has the outdoor furniture been repaired or replaced?
- 03How do you record whether each person has a legal representative who supports decisions?
- 04What action has been taken to make sure all statutory notifications are sent on time?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and best-interest decisions?
This was a planned follow-up inspection covering the home and all five CQC questions, including care, premises, records and management. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 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 92 North Street
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 March 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.