CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Adams House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, risk management, staffing and recruitment arrangements. Medicines were safely stored, administered and recorded, and audits were used to check procedures.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support based on assessed needs and professional guidance. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with healthy diets and healthcare referrals were made when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with warmth, compassion, dignity and respect. People and relatives were involved in care planning, and people were supported to make choices and remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's health and social needs and were regularly reviewed. People were supported with communication, activities, holidays, relationships and access to the community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective management, communication and quality checks. Improvement actions from audits had been completed or were being addressed.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Adams House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some room to improve its campus setting and unused skills area.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 September 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They observed daily activities and checked care records, medicines records, staff records, accident records and quality checks.
Inspectors found that people were safe and received personalised support. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and supported their choices, independence, relationships, activities and access to the local community. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and safeguarding arrangements were all found to be good.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection rating was also Good, published on 9 February 2017. The report did not identify any breaches of regulations or enforcement action.
Personalised support
Care was based on people's needs and preferences. Staff knew people well and followed their support plans.
“People received person-centred support and staff knew people very well.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received the right medicines at the right times. Records, storage and checks were found to be safe.
“Medicines were managed well, safely administered and recorded accurately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff supported people's dignity, choices, independence and important relationships. Families were welcomed and involved.
“We observed staff treating people with warmth, compassion and kindness.” from the report
Activities and community links
People took part in activities they enjoyed, including community trips, holidays and work on their own garden areas.
“People were supported to access activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Quality checks
The home used audits and monitoring to identify improvements. Actions were recorded with target dates and were completed or being addressed.
“There was an effective system in place to check on the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Campus-style setting
minorThe inspectors said the campus-style arrangement does not fit current best practice guidance about small, locally integrated services. They also said its effect was reduced by separate buildings and access to local facilities.
“The service is located on a campus style community and as such would not fit with current best practice guidance which suggests small local services, integrated with the community.” from the report
Skills area not fully used
minorThe home had a large skills area, but it was not being used to its full potential. The manager had plans to develop it.
“The registered manager also told us of plans to develop the skills area, a large space that could be utilised more effectively as it currently wasn't being used to its full potential.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people living in the campus-style setting have regular links with the wider local community?
- 02What progress has been made with developing the skills area since the inspection?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their support plan and communication needs?
- 04How do you check that medicines continue to be given and recorded safely?
- 05What activities, trips and holidays could my relative take part in, and how would you support their independence?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care, records, staff arrangements and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 October 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Adams House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some records and communication needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 9 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were generally safe, supported by enough staff and helped with their health, food, activities and personal choices.
Inspectors found some shortfalls. These included incomplete medicines information, inconsistent mental capacity records, gaps in plans for future goals and some communication that did not fully meet people's needs. The report says these issues did not affect people's safety and that improvements were being planned.
People were kept safe
Staff understood safeguarding procedures and people's individual risks. There were enough staff, and checks were made before new staff started work.
“Staff were aware of the safeguarding procedures and had received appropriate training.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respond quickly when people became upset. People's privacy, dignity, routines and personal preferences were respected.
“Staff showed warmth and care for the people they supported.” from the report
Personalised activities
People had activity plans based on their interests and were supported to enjoy hobbies, social activities, friendships and holidays.
“People's interests, hobbies and preferences to how they spent their time was recorded and understood by staff.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used daily, weekly and monthly checks to monitor quality and safety. The registered manager had identified improvements and was tracking progress.
“The registered manager demonstrated a strong commitment to continually improve the service.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome as-needed medicine instructions did not explain when medicines should be given or what signs staff should look for. Some cabinet temperature checks and cream application body maps were incomplete.
“Some minor inconsistencies were identified with the management of medicines.” from the report
Mental capacity paperwork
needs fixingRecords about people's ability to consent to medicines and finances were sometimes missing or incorrect. The manager said further training and support would be arranged.
“We found inconsistencies with how the MCA was applied.” from the report
Communication
needs fixingSome staff did not always use the communication methods recorded for people. Care records also did not fully capture the detailed communication knowledge held by staff.
“This told us that people received some inconsistencies in how staff met their individual communication needs.” from the report
Future goals
needs fixingReviews considered people's goals and aspirations, but did not always say clearly what staff would do or how progress would be measured.
“they lacked clear actions of how people would be supported to achieve their goals, including ways to measure outcomes.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that as-needed medicine instructions explain when medicines should be given and what signs staff should look for?
- 02How do you make sure mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions are completed correctly for medicines and finances?
- 03How are each person's communication needs recorded and passed on to new staff?
- 04What clear actions and measures are now included in plans for people's future goals?
- 05How are families told about the results of surveys and other feedback they provide?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and setting an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 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 Adams House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.