CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Amberley House - Plymouth
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, using PPE safely, arranging COVID-19 testing and following current guidance. They were also told that staffing pressures were being managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors considered visiting arrangements during the outbreak.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Amberley House - Plymouth was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak, with some visiting restrictions linked to staffing.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 24 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staff pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, following hygiene and distancing measures, and managing the outbreak. Staffing levels were maintained without agency staff, although the home relied on its own staff working extra hours.
Visits were restricted at the start of the outbreak. End-of-life visits were supported, and bookings for the visitor pod were being taken again. The overall service and Safe question were inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires Improvement or Inadequate rating.
Staffing maintained
The home maintained staffing levels during the outbreak without using agency staff. Its own staff worked additional hours to cover shifts.
“Daily oversight and careful management of staffing levels had meant there had been no staff shortages.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection control measures, including PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Support for visiting
The home supported visits in line with the guidance available at the time, including visits for people receiving end-of-life care.
“The service was following current guidance in relation to visiting in care homes during the current outbreaks of COVID-19.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
Cleaning routines had been increased, including cleaning frequently touched surfaces and the visitor pod between visits.
“Cleaning staff confirmed that cleaning regimes had been changed as a result of COVID, such as regular cleaning of high contact touch points” from the report
Visitor pod temporarily closed
needs fixingThe visitor pod stayed closed for part of the outbreak because there were not enough staff to manage cleaning and supervision. Bookings were being taken again when the report was written.
“The visitor's pod had also stayed closed due to lack of staffing to manage the cleaning and supervising of the visitor's pod.” from the report
- 01How are visits arranged now, and what would happen if the home had another COVID-19 outbreak?
- 02Has the visitor pod remained available, and who is responsible for cleaning and supervising it?
- 03How would you maintain staffing levels during an outbreak without relying on staff working extra hours?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested, and what PPE and cleaning arrangements are currently in place?
- 05How is the home supporting essential care givers and visits for people receiving end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not provide a full service rating or assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some cleaning checks still to improve.
This was a planned inspection. The first day was unannounced, and inspectors visited on 25 April, 1 May and 7 May 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff files, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, good support with health and nutrition, and care that respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
People and relatives described kind care. Staff knew people well and supported them to stay as independent as possible. The home worked with health professionals and had a stable staff team and approachable managers.
The home was already rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 31 March 2017, and remained Good. Inspectors asked the home to increase some cleaning checks, particularly for toilets and dining tablecloths.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind, friendly and respectful. Inspectors also saw gentle and patient support.
“Everyone we spoke with confirmed they were well treated and cared for.” from the report
Staff knew people well
The staff team was stable and understood people's needs, preferences and ways of communicating. This helped people receive individualised support.
“Some people had complex needs and they were supported by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Safe care
Risks such as falls and skin damage were assessed and managed while supporting independence. Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely.
“When people had been assessed as being at risk, staff had clear guidance on how to minimise the risk while allowing people to remain as independent as possible.” from the report
Good food and nutrition support
People had food choices, freshly cooked meals and alternatives. Staff monitored nutrition and supported people to eat patiently and without rushing.
“We observed people being supported to eat by staff in an unhurried, patient way.” from the report
Strong management
Inspectors found approachable managers, clear responsibilities and regular quality checks. The home had good relationships with health professionals.
“The culture and atmosphere at the service was warm, welcoming, friendly and inclusive.” from the report
Some cleaning checks needed strengthening
minorInspectors asked the home to increase checks in some areas, especially toilets and dining tablecloths. The manager agreed to take action.
“We spoke with the registered manager about increasing the cleaning checks in some areas, particularly the toilets and dining tablecloths and they agreed to action this.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment under consideration
minorThe home was an older property and inspectors discussed using dementia-environment research during refurbishment. More signage and a café-style dining area were being considered.
“Amberley House was an older style property and we spoke with the service about considering research related to dementia environments as they undertook refurbishment.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to cleaning checks for the toilets and dining tablecloths since this inspection?
- 02What further dementia-friendly changes are planned for signage and the building environment?
- 03How do you make sure care plans are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 04How do you support people to remain independent while managing risks such as falls or skin damage?
- 05How are end-of-life wishes recorded and kept up to date with families and health professionals?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care and premises provided by the home; the first day was unannounced. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 May 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 Amberley House - Plymouth
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Plymouth
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.