CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Allensmead
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and regularly reviewed risk assessments. Medicines were stored and managed safely, and records were up to date.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisal. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare appointments and community access.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and compassionate. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care, and staff promoted independence and choice.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, individualised and updated when needs changed. Activities were available and complaints were handled in a timely way.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, staff handovers and quality monitoring. This improved on the previous inspection, when Well-led was rated Requires improvement.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the end-of-life plan did not clearly record arrangements.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 July 2018. One inspector spoke with the person living at the home, observed care, spoke with staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines, audits and staff files.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, well-managed medicines, suitable training and good access to health services.
Care was described as kind and respectful. Staff supported choice, independence, activities and contact with the community. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. Inspectors also found that the previous concerns about well-led monitoring had been addressed.
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Recruitment checks were in place before staff started work.
“The provider's arrangements ensured that staff were recruited safely and people were supported by sufficient staff to meet their needs and ensure their safety and wellbeing.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity and compassion. They encouraged people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“Staff were kind and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, strengths and independence. Staff supported individual interests, meals and community activities.
“These were fully person centred and gave detailed guidance for staff so that staff could consistently deliver the care and support the people needed, in the way each person preferred.” from the report
Improved management checks
The previous concern about quality monitoring had been addressed. The home used regular audits and action plans to check and improve care.
“At this inspection we found the provider had reviewed their monitoring system and quality assurance policy as to ensure it was up to date.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingThe person's support plan did not clearly record what should happen at the end of their life. Inspectors suggested adding clear instructions so staff would respond consistently.
“We found the person's support plan did not contained clear information regarding what end of life arrangements were in place.” from the report
- 01How will you record and review my relative's end-of-life wishes and arrangements?
- 02How will staffing remain sufficient if my relative's needs increase or staff are absent?
- 03How will you involve my relative and our family when care plans or risks change?
- 04What activities and community access would be available for my relative?
- 05How do your regular audits identify and follow up any problems in care or medicines?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC areas; one person was living at the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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 Allensmead
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 May 2017.
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 Thurrock
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 £1,210 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.