CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Allendale Residential
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and that people's risks were assessed and reviewed. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, induction and regular supervision. People received support with nutrition, health appointments and decisions made in their best interests when they lacked capacity.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind, patient and respectful support. Staff promoted people's choices, independence, dignity and privacy, and adapted communication to individual needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, interests and changing needs. People were supported with social activities and had access to a complaints procedure in a format they could understand.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as approachable and had systems to monitor quality. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback, and audits led to some improvements.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
Inspectors visited on 6 and 9 October 2017 without telling the home in advance. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good in every area: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems and suitable checks when staff were recruited. People were supported with food, health needs, choices, privacy and activities that mattered to them.
This was the first inspection that gave the home ratings. The earlier inspection could not rate it because nobody was using the service at that time.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient and caring. People were supported to make choices, and their dignity and privacy were respected.
“People were treated with care, kindness and respect and staff promoted people's independence and their right to privacy was upheld.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's routines, communication methods and interests. Care was reviewed when needs changed, including support with continence and anxiety.
“This meant that people received care and support that was responsive to their changing needs because their care was reviewed regularly.” from the report
Good leadership and feedback
The manager was approachable and used audits and feedback to monitor the service. The home was developing ways for people who could not communicate verbally to share their views.
“This meant that people's feedback was gained in a way that met their individual needs to make improvements to the way people received their care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you support my relative to stay independent while managing their assessed risks?
- 02How do you adapt communication and gather feedback from people who cannot easily express their views verbally?
- 03How will you review my relative's care plan when their health, continence or emotional needs change?
- 04What activities and trips could my relative take part in, based on their interests?
- 05How do you check that medicines are balanced, recorded and given as prescribed at every shift?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and giving the home's first ratings; the previous inspection could not rate it because nobody was using the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Not rated because the home had only recently started providing care, but inspectors saw safe, kind and responsive support.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 26 January 2017. This was the first inspection since the provider registered in March 2016. One person had started using the home only two weeks earlier.
Inspectors spoke with a relative, three care staff and the registered manager. They observed care, looked around the home and checked records about care, medicines, staff recruitment, training and management.
The home was inspected in all five areas, but no ratings were given. There was not yet enough evidence to judge the service fully because it had only recently begun providing care.
Inspectors found that the person was safe, received kind and respectful care, had their health and nutrition needs supported, and was helped to take part in activities and community life. Management systems were in place, but had not yet been fully used or tested.
Safe staffing
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet the person's needs calmly and without delay. Recruitment checks were completed before staff supported people.
“We found that there were enough suitably qualified staff available.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff explained medicines, used guidance for medicines given when needed, and had completed relevant training. Medicines were stored, recorded and managed safely.
“We found that the provider had effective system in place that ensured medicines were administered, stored, recorded and managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff used a calm manner, offered reassurance and protected the person's privacy and dignity during personal care.
“We observed staff providing support to the person who used the service in a caring and compassionate way.” from the report
Personalised support
The person's preferences, interests and communication style were recorded in care plans. Family members were involved in planning the care.
“This meant that the person who used the service was supported to maintain their independence and follow their interests that were important to them.” from the report
Approachable management
Relatives and staff said management was approachable. Inspectors saw that a staff suggestion about equipment had been acted on.
“We saw minutes of a team meeting, which included updates in care practice from the registered manager and discussions about the care standards expected from staff.” from the report
Limited evidence over time
minorThe home had only recently started supporting one person, so inspectors could not judge the service fully or award ratings. This means the report gives only an early picture.
“This meant we were unable to provide a rating for the service at the time of the inspection as there was not sufficient evidence to us to assess whether the service was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.” from the report
Audits not yet completed
minorThe home had a schedule for monthly checks, including medicines, infection control and care plans, but these checks had not started. Inspectors said they would assess whether the systems worked at the next inspection.
“We found that these systems were not being completed at the time of the inspection because the provider had only recently started to provide a service.” from the report
- 01Have the monthly medicines, infection control and care plan audits now been completed, and what did they show?
- 02How will staffing levels be maintained if the home supports more than one person?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan, preferences and communication needs be reviewed?
- 04How will you make sure food is prepared safely if a person has swallowing or choking risks?
- 05How can relatives raise a concern or complaint, and how quickly will it be investigated?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five questions, but the home was not rated because it had supported one person for only two weeks. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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 Allendale Residential
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2017Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 March 2016.
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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.