CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Amber House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were safely recruited, staffing levels matched assessed needs, and medicines, infection control and environmental risks were managed well.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had personalised care plans and received support from trained staff. Inspectors found a shortfall because capacity assessments for some restrictions were not always completed or recorded.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Leaders had effective audits and monitoring systems, understood people's needs and promoted an open, inclusive and person-centred culture.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but some capacity assessment records needed improvement.
This was a focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 1 November 2023 and reviewed information, care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files, audits and policies. They spoke with 7 people, 1 relative and 9 staff, and observed care and infection control.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were trained, safely recruited and understood people's needs. Inspectors found good support with medicines, risks, infection control, health care and daily life.
Inspectors found a warm and respectful culture. People were supported to make choices and be as independent as possible. However, records showing why some restrictions were needed, including physical intervention and medicines, were not always complete. The provider had identified this and was introducing improved capacity assessments.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to report concerns.
“I feel very safe and supported.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, communication and sensory requirements. Staff supported people to make choices, take positive risks and remain as independent as possible.
“Personalised support plans gave clear information for staff to follow in keeping people safe, whilst enabling people to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff protected people's privacy and dignity and responded to individual needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Recruitment checks were completed, staffing levels matched people's assessed needs, and staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines.
“Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment files showed all pre-employment checks had been made to ensure only staff who were suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed.” from the report
Open leadership
Audits covered areas such as care plans, medicines and infection control. Inspectors found leaders open about areas needing improvement.
“The registered manager understood the duty of candour and was open and honest about where the service needed to improve.” from the report
Capacity assessment records
needs fixingAssessments were not always completed when restrictions were used, including physical intervention and medicines. The provider had recognised this and was putting new assessments in place.
“Assessment of people's capacity to make decisions where restrictions had been applied were not always completed.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording people's capacity and best-interest decisions when physical intervention is used?
- 02How do you check that medicines given as needed are still necessary and not excessive or inappropriate?
- 03How will you involve the person in decisions about restrictions and the least restrictive option?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels remain suitable when people's needs or activities change?
- 05How do you gather and act on feedback from people and their relatives?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 November 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care after significant improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 25 April and 8 May 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, a relative, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, training, complaints, audits and the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staffing, medicines, risk assessments, infection control, staff training and mental capacity practice had improved.
The previous inspection in August 2017 found breaches in several regulations. At this inspection, inspectors found significant improvements, including more detailed care plans, safer premises, stronger recruitment checks and better quality monitoring.
People were supported with choice, independence, activities, healthcare and meals. Inspectors also found kind and patient staff, an open management approach and complaints that had been investigated and resolved.
Major improvement
The home had made significant improvements since the previous inspection. Inspectors found that earlier problems with care planning, safety, recruitment and management had been addressed.
“At this inspection we looked at the previous breaches of regulations and the action plan to check that improvements had been made and sustained over a period of time.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's routines, life history, communication and behaviour triggers. People were supported to choose activities and develop independence skills.
“Care records were individualised, person centred and reflected the wishes and needs of the people who used the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and were observed treating them with patience, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and daily lives.
“We observed staff being attentive to the individual needs of people, and interactions were patient and caring.” from the report
Safer staffing and medicines
Staff recruitment checks were in place, staffing levels had improved and medicines were stored and administered through clearer systems, training and checks.
“Systems were in place for the safe management of medicines. People's medicines were securely maintained and staff had completed relevant training.” from the report
Stronger management
The management team was described as approachable and visible. Quality checks identified problems and actions were followed up.
“Quality assurance systems highlighted shortfalls and appropriate action taken.” from the report
Some mental capacity assessments were still pending
minorEight people were waiting for assessment under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards at the time of the inspection. The report says the home had made appropriate applications, but families should ask about the current position.
“There were eight people who were awaiting assessment and a further five people who accessed respite services.” from the report
Accessible menus were still being improved
minorA pictorial menu was available, but the home said more work was needed to improve it. This may matter to people who rely on accessible information to make choices.
“The registered manager told us that although a pictorial menu was in place further work was being carried out to improve this.” from the report
- 01How have the improvements made after the August 2017 inspection been checked and maintained?
- 02Are all current mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards assessments and authorisations up to date?
- 03How will my relative's care plan describe their communication, behaviour triggers, risks and preferred routines?
- 04How are people supported to choose activities and build independence in the home and community?
- 05How will my relative be involved in choosing meals and receiving information in an accessible format?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and checking whether improvements after the August 2017 inspection had been sustained. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 2018 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 Amber House
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 June 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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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 £1,300 a week. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.