CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Agility Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were kept safe through reviewed risk assessments, medicines checks, safeguarding training and improved recruitment checks. Inspectors recommended improving how accidents and incidents are analysed to identify trends.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, people's health needs were recorded, and the home worked with healthcare professionals. Inspectors found that consent and best-interest processes had improved and were no longer in breach.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not inspected during this focused visit, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Responsive was not inspected during this focused visit, so no new rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had audits and other systems to monitor the service, and staff and relatives described a positive, supportive culture. Inspectors still recommended improving the analysis of accidents and incidents.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Agility Care rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but accident analysis and some repairs needed attention.
This was a focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 2 August 2023, reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records, observed care, and spoke with relatives, staff and health professionals.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found people were kept safe, supported by trained staff and helped to make choices, access the community and receive healthcare. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care.
The inspection followed an earlier Requires Improvement rating. The provider had completed an action plan, and inspectors found enough improvement for the home to be no longer in breach of the regulations. However, the inspection did not reassess Caring or Responsive, so those ratings carried over from the previous inspection.
Kind and patient staff
Inspectors found that people received care from staff who knew them well and were committed to their daily lives.
“People received care from staff who were patient, kind and passionate about their roles and determined to make a difference to people's daily lives.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take part in household activities, access the community and keep in touch with family and friends.
“The home met people's individual needs and promoted people's independence as much as possible, such as accessing the local community, shopping, household chores and visits to and from family and friends.” from the report
Improved safety systems
Recruitment checks had improved since the previous inspection. Staff had the training and checks needed to support people safely.
“The registered manager carried out checks on all staff before they commenced working at the service.” from the report
Good healthcare support
People had health action plans and were supported to attend appointments. The home worked with a range of health professionals.
“The service worked well with health professionals to ensure people received the right care and support.” from the report
Accident analysis
needs fixingThe incident record mainly showed a person's name and the date. Inspectors were not assured that it could identify patterns or repeated problems, and recommended that this system be improved.
“We were not assured this system was an effective analysis tool which would be able to identify any trends or themes to prevent future reoccurrence.” from the report
Some repairs needed
minorInspectors found a broken toilet flush and chipped or scuffed surfaces around some bedroom sinks. The manager knew about these issues and was arranging repairs or removal.
“In 1 person's bedroom we found their toilet flush button was broken.” from the report
- 01How do you now analyse accidents and incidents to identify trends and prevent them happening again?
- 02Has the broken toilet flush been repaired, and have the scuffed or chipped bedroom sink units been removed or replaced?
- 03What were the Caring and Responsive ratings at the last comprehensive inspection?
- 04How will you support my relative to make choices and take part in community activities?
- 05How are medicines, including as-required medicines, reviewed and checked?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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, March 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but weaknesses in consent records, risk management and oversight.
This was the first inspection of the home under its current registration. It was an unannounced planned inspection on 02 February 2022 and 15 February 2022. Inspectors observed how people communicated, spoke with relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People were treated kindly and with dignity. Staff knew people well, supported their independence and helped them access healthcare. The home also supported communication in different ways and helped people maintain relationships.
There were important gaps in records and checks. Capacity assessments, risk assessments, care plans and covert medicines protocols were not always up to date or detailed enough. Recruitment records were incomplete, and the quality checks did not identify these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The provider was asked for an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and return for another inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, responded to their emotions and protected their privacy and dignity. They also encouraged independence in everyday tasks.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Support for health
People were supported to attend health checks, screening and appointments. Staff worked with health professionals and helped people take an active role in their wellbeing.
“People were supported to attend annual health checks, health screening and any relevant appointments.” from the report
Positive staff culture
The manager worked directly with people and staff said they could raise concerns. The home also worked with other health professionals to support people's wellbeing.
“The registered manager worked directly with people and led by example, regularly working alongside staff on duty” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousThe home did not always record how people were supported to make decisions or how best-interest decisions were reached. Restrictions, such as needing staff to unlock the garden door, were not always properly assessed or reviewed.
“The provider did not have robust processes in place to assess people's capacity to consent or support their decision-making.” from the report
Quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not identify several problems found during the inspection. This included gaps in capacity assessments, medicines protocols, recruitment records and risk management.
“The provider did not have robust processes in place to monitor the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
Care records and risk reviews
needs fixingCare plans did not always explain how to support people's choices and changing needs. Risk assessments were not always reviewed regularly, although the manager said these had been reviewed after the inspection.
“Risks to people's safety had been assessed and recorded; however, risk assessments had not been regularly reviewed” from the report
Personalised activities
minorPeople were not doing as many personalised leisure activities during the pandemic. The home had started plans to review interests and support people to return to activities where possible.
“The COVID-19 pandemic had impacted on people's preferred leisure interests and people were not being supported with as many personalised pursuits as before.” from the report
- 01Have all capacity assessments and best-interest records been reviewed and updated, and how are people and their representatives involved?
- 02How are restrictions on people's freedom, including access to the garden, assessed and reviewed for less restrictive options?
- 03What checks now make sure risk assessments, care plans and covert medicines protocols are accurate and current?
- 04What recruitment checks are completed before new staff start work?
- 05What personalised activities are now available, and how are people involved in choosing and reviewing them?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection under the current registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 2022 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 Agility Care
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 April 2019.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.