CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at A M Care Home Limited
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care that supported choice and independence.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector. The inspector spoke with five people living in the home, four relatives, 11 staff members and one visiting professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home supported seven people, with space for up to eight adults with learning disabilities, autism or other mental health conditions. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Staff knew people well and supported their health, activities, relationships and independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection rating was also Good, published in June 2017. CQC said it would continue monitoring information about the home and inspect sooner if concerns were received.
Flexible staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff could adjust shifts to support activities, community trips and changes to people's plans.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs. Staff worked flexibly to be able to support people with activities and trips in the community.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in their care and supported to make everyday choices. Staff helped people build independence while considering safety.
“People were encouraged to be independent which was reflected in risk assessments and support plans.” from the report
Personalised communication
The home had individual communication plans and passports. People who did not speak English as a first language had translated records and access to translators for medical appointments.
“People who had communication needs had individual communication plans which contained detailed information about how they communicated and how to ensure they understood what was being communicated to them.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, use community services and maintain personal and family relationships.
“People were able to frequently access the community for personalised activities.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you update and review my relative's individual risk assessments if their needs or plans change?
- 02How do you support people who can manage some or all of their own medicines, and how are staff competencies checked?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough familiar staff when people have evening activities, community trips or changed plans?
- 04Can you show me how my relative's communication needs, language and preferences will be recorded and shared with health professionals?
- 05How are complaints recorded, answered and used to make improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, accommodation, records, medicines, staffing and management systems; the provider could not complete its information return because of technical problems. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 February 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, June 2017
A M Care Home Limited is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with one recruitment check and food variety needing attention.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 17 and 22 May 2017. The inspector spoke with managers, care staff, relatives, people living at the home and health care professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines, staff files, training, complaints and audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines as prescribed, and had enough staff to meet their needs.
Care was described as kind, respectful and tailored to each person. People were supported with food, health care, activities, relationships and choices. Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs and preferences.
The rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection. Inspectors found one staff file had gaps in employment history that had not been followed up, but the manager said systems had since been put in place to prevent this happening again.
Safe medicines
People received their medicines as prescribed. The home carried out regular checks, including checks by an external pharmacist.
“People had received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff responding quickly and treating people with kindness, dignity and respect.
“Care was provided with kindness and compassion and people had regular contact from staff during our inspection to ensure they did not need anything.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's physical, emotional, social and psychological needs, as well as their preferences, relationships and activities.
“People's care files were very person centred and contained information relevant to each person.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to follow their interests, attend events, use local facilities and keep in touch with relatives and friends.
“The service supported people to follow their interests and hobbies and access the local community through day trips and events.” from the report
Open management
Staff and relatives said management was approachable. The home used meetings, audits and people's feedback to monitor and improve the service.
“There was an open culture and people and their families were involved with the running of the service and there were systems in place to gain people's views.” from the report
Employment history check
needs fixingOne recently recruited staff file had gaps in employment history that had not been fully checked or explained. The manager later confirmed that new systems had been put in place.
“Although there was a section on the application form and interview form to record any gaps in employment, one file viewed had not been fully screened and had gaps.” from the report
More variety in the menu
minorThe food was generally viewed positively, but feedback said the menu still needed more variety.
“The new menu has improved, but there is still room for more variety,” from the report
- 01How do you now check and record full employment histories, including explanations for any gaps?
- 02What changes have been made to increase variety in the weekly menu?
- 03How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans and making decisions?
- 04How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
- 05How do you use feedback, complaints and audits to make improvements?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the report says all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 2017 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 A M Care Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Thurrock
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 £1,210 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.