CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 57 King Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, safeguarding, staffing, medicines and infection control were generally managed well. They raised concerns about the missing ligature cutters, mould and an unrestricted fire escape window.
- Effective?
- Good
- No rating or detailed findings were given for this question in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- No rating or detailed findings were given for this question in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- No rating or detailed findings were given for this question in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive leadership, a stable staff team, regular feedback, house meetings and open communication with relatives and professionals.
What inspectors found, April 2023
ABLE (Action for a Better Life) - 57 King Street was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred support but identified safety issues with a window, mould and ligature cutters.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 February 2023. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and professionals. They reviewed five care plans, risk assessments, recruitment and training records, medicines information, audits and health and safety records.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. People said they felt listened to and respected. Relatives and professionals said staff knew people well, worked in a person-centred way and supported people creatively.
Inspectors found some issues that needed attention. A fire escape window did not have a restrictor, mould in a bathroom had not been removed, and ligature cutters were not available when the inspection began. The manager took some action during or after the inspection, including ordering ligature cutters and arranging for a window restrictor to be added.
People feel respected
People said they could make choices and felt listened to and respected.
“They said they were able to make choices and felt listened to and respected.” from the report
Staff know people well
The home had a consistent team who understood people's needs and supported them in a person-centred way.
“People had access to support from staff who knew them well and who worked in a person centred way.” from the report
Clear care plans
Inspectors found that care plans reflected people's needs and were developed with their involvement.
“Care plans for people were clear and reflected people's needs.” from the report
Training and learning
Training records were up to date, and the home had made changes after medicine errors.
“Staff training was online and training records showed that training for all staff was up to date.” from the report
Fire escape window
seriousAn upstairs bedroom window could be opened wide and did not have a restrictor. Inspectors recommended seeking advice from the fire brigade because of the safety risk.
“A window in an upstairs bedroom did not have a window restrainer on it and could be opened wide.” from the report
Mould in bathroom
seriousMould in the downstairs bathroom had been reported to the landlord, but repair work had stopped and was incomplete. Inspectors said it should be removed promptly because of possible respiratory risks.
“The downstairs bathroom had some mould on the walls, this has been reported to their landlord who started some repair work but then stopped and did not complete it.” from the report
Ligature cutters missing
seriousThe home's policy said ligature cutters should be available if someone tried to harm themselves, but none were present at the start of the inspection. They were ordered and arrived before the inspection ended.
“The provider's policy for keeping people safe stated that ligature cutters should be used in the event of a person attempting to harm themselves but there were none in the service.” from the report
- 01Has the restrictor now been fitted to the upstairs bedroom fire escape window, and what advice did the fire risk assessor give?
- 02Has the mould in the downstairs bathroom been fully removed, and who is responsible for completing the repair?
- 03Is food and drink now kept in the kitchen and available to people in the usual way?
- 04What changes were made after the three medicine errors, and have there been any further errors?
- 05Have the newest employee's full employment history and clear DBS check now been confirmed?
This inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the report did not give ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive, while the previous overall rating in 2018 was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 2023 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, February 2018
ABLE (Action for a Better Life) - 57 King Street was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 22 January 2018. Two inspectors spoke with five people, two staff members and the manager. They reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines, incidents, complaints and quality checks, and received feedback from health professionals.
The home supported six people with mental health needs. Inspectors found that people felt safe and that staffing, recruitment, medicines, fire safety and infection control were managed safely. Staff were trained and understood people's needs, choices and rights.
People described the staff as kind and understanding. Care plans were detailed and personalised, and people were supported with health appointments, activities and independence. All five areas were rated Good, and the home remained Good compared with the previous inspection in November 2015.
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences, mental health needs and goals. People were involved in writing and reviewing their plans.
“Care plans were personalised and detailed people's choices and preferences in relation to the support they wanted to receive.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Staff respected people's privacy and personal space. People could choose where to spend their time and whether to join conversations or activities.
“People's privacy and dignity was maintained.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Records, reviews, checks and staff competency assessments were in place.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed. Accurate records of medicine administration had been maintained.” from the report
Supportive staff
People said staff knew them well and showed empathy. Staff supported independence, relationships, activities and access to the community.
“All of the people we spoke with said the staff knew them well.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used regular audits, visits and records to check safety and identify improvements. Staff could raise concerns and ideas.
“The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and identify areas of improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you increase staffing if my relative's needs changed or became more complex?
- 02How would you support my relative to manage medicines safely, including any medicines taken only when needed?
- 03How would you involve my relative in writing and reviewing their care plan and personal goals?
- 04What support is available during episodes of anxiety or distress?
- 05How can my relative raise a complaint, and how will it be recorded privately and investigated?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas, and all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 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 57 King Street
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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 two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.