CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 2 David's Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitors, PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 3 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 outbreak response.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were checked, PPE was used safely, testing was carried out, and cleaning had increased. They were also assured that the home had up-to-date infection control arrangements.
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends through telephone and video calls, as well as drive-by visits. The home also helped staff travel without using public transport.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives findings about infection control, rather than an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors had their temperature checked, completed a health questionnaire and wore PPE before entering.
“Visitors had their temperature taken, completed a health questionnaire and wore personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
PPE and testing
The home had enough PPE, and staff were trained to use it correctly. Regular COVID-19 testing was carried out for people living at the home and staff.
“All staff had received training in the correct use of PPE, and how to take it off and put it on safely.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to stay in touch with family and friends by telephone, video calls and drive-by visits.
“People were also supported with 'drive-by' visits so that they could see their family members from a distance.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning, including of frequently touched surfaces, had increased and there were enough cleaning supplies.
“Cleaning of the home, including frequently touched surfaces, had increased to reduce the risk of transmission of infection.” from the report
Staff travel
The service helped staff travel safely to and from work without using public transport, including by paying for a screened private taxi when needed.
“The service supported staff to travel to work safely without the need to use public transport.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 03 February 2021?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested, and what happens if a test result is positive?
- 03How do you check that staff continue to use PPE correctly and safely?
- 04How often are frequently touched surfaces and other areas cleaned?
- 05How are people currently supported to keep in touch with their families and friends?
This was a targeted, unannounced inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 March 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, November 2019
Alan Atchison - 2 David's Close was rated Good overall; care was kind and safe, but staff training and knowledge of current guidance needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 and 24 October 2019. One inspector spoke with five people and five staff, and reviewed care records, training records, audits, complaints information and legal safeguards records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, clean surroundings, kind relationships and support for people's choices, independence, activities and outside interests.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Not all staff had completed mandatory training, and the manager was not aware of some current best practice guidance. The home was still rated Good overall, but this means one important area was not consistently effective.
Kind relationships
People had caring relationships with staff who understood their individual and sometimes complex needs and wishes.
“People had developed caring relationships with staff who understood their individual and sometimes complex care and support needs and wishes.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff for people's needs, including support in the community. Staff were trained to give medicines and their competence was checked.
“Staffing levels were looked at and determined to make sure they met the needs of the people using the service.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with suitable infection control arrangements described by staff.
“All areas of the service were clean and tidy with no malodours.” from the report
Mandatory training incomplete
needs fixingNot all staff had completed mandatory training, including a new staff member. Inspectors said this increased the risk that people might not receive effective or up-to-date support.
“Staff training records showed that not all staff had completed their mandatory training.” from the report
Current guidance
minorThe manager was not aware of the Registering the Right Support guidance until the inspection. Inspectors recommended keeping up to date with current best practice.
“The registered manager told us that they had only been made aware of the Registering the Right Support guidance after the first day of this inspection.” from the report
Oversight missed training gaps
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified that some staff training was not up to date. The manager showed inspectors how this would be monitored in future.
“However, these audits had not identified that not all staff training was up to date.” from the report
- 01Which staff had not completed mandatory training at the inspection, and has all required training now been completed?
- 02What set time limits do new staff now have for completing induction and mandatory training?
- 03How does the home now keep managers and staff up to date with Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance?
- 04Have all outstanding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications now been processed, and are any conditions being met?
- 05Have people's end of life wishes been fully recorded as planned by the end of 2019?
This was a planned, unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with an additional survey about restrictive interventions. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 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 2 David's Close
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Peterborough
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 £1,370 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I honestly feel lucky to have found her and have already booked her for another visit.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.