CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ambleside
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring care, but leadership and quality checks required improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 August 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safety. Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe, although there was high use of agency staff. They found risks were assessed, medicines were generally managed safely, and infection control was mostly effective.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Quality checks had missed problems with medicine records, pressure-relieving mattresses and medicines competency assessments. Some issues had been identified before but had not been fully resolved.
The overall rating remained Good because ratings for areas not inspected were carried forward from the previous inspection. The previous overall rating, published in March 2018, was also Good.
Risk management
People's risks, including falls, malnutrition, skin damage, diabetes and catheter care, were assessed and reviewed.
“Risks associated with people's care had been identified and assessed and plans were in place to minimise risks occurring.” from the report
Caring culture
Inspectors found that staff promoted a caring, person-centred approach. People and relatives described the home positively.
“A caring and person-centred culture was promoted within the home and people felt well cared for.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff understood their responsibility to recognise and report possible abuse or neglect.
“Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives were involved through regular meetings and could visit without a booking system, unless they had tested positive for COVID-19.
“The provider engaged and involved people using the service.” from the report
Heavy use of agency staff
needs fixingThere were enough staff, but agency workers did not always know people's needs, routines and preferences. The provider was recruiting permanent staff.
“Permanent staff told us the use of agency staff had caused some difficulties as they did not always know people's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits did not identify some important problems, including incorrect settings on two pressure-relieving mattresses. This increased the risk of skin breakdown.
“Audits had not identified gaps in records of administration relating to patch medicines or that two people's pressure relieving mattresses were set too high for the person's individual weight which placed them at increased risk of skin breakdown.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingRecords did not always show that topical creams had been applied. Records for patch medicines did not always follow safe rotation guidance or confirm that patches remained in place.
“We identified improvements were needed to ensure the application of topical creams was always recorded and records relating to the administration of patch medicines followed manufacturer guidelines for safe rotation, and to check they remained in place.” from the report
Medicines competency checks
needs fixingFormal assessments of nursing staff's medicines competency were not being completed in line with the guidance referred to by inspectors.
“Governance systems had not identified that formal assessments of medicines competency for nursing staff were not being carried out according to NICE guidelines.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff currently work on the unit, and how do you make sure agency staff know my relative's routines and preferences?
- 02What action has been taken to make sure topical creams and patch medicines are recorded correctly every time?
- 03How are pressure-relieving mattresses checked and set for each person's weight?
- 04How are nursing staff's medicines competencies assessed and kept up to date?
- 05What changes have been made to quality audits so that problems are found and resolved promptly?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 August 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, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but identified some issues with equipment settings, records and weekend staffing.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 1 February 2018 and returned on 7 February 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff, managers and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, training, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, clean premises and care that respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
The home had improved since the last inspection. A new management team had strengthened audits, staff recruitment and activities. Inspectors still found some shortfalls, including incorrectly set pressure mattresses, unclear records for one person using a PEG tube, and one incident involving the wrong prescribed thickener.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to identify and report concerns, and risks such as falls and skin damage were monitored.
“Everyone continued to feel safe living at the home which was confirmed by those people we spoke with.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as calm, caring and unhurried. They used people's preferred names, protected privacy and supported people at their own pace.
“During our visit we saw staff continued to have a caring approach and supported people in a relaxed and unhurried way.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were given by trained staff and records were completed correctly. The home also had arrangements for time-critical and end of life medicines.
“People received their medicines as prescribed, from trained and competent staff.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its audits, action plans and management oversight since the previous inspection. Agency staff were no longer relied on, supporting more consistent teams.
“Agency staff were no longer relied on which meant the staff teams were more consistent and worked better.” from the report
Activities matched people's interests
The home had expanded activities and sought information from families to understand what mattered to each person. Activities included gardening, art, baking, pet visits and seated exercise.
“Each person had a timetable for the week's activities in their bedroom so they could plan what they wanted to do that week.” from the report
Pressure mattress settings
needs fixingTwo pressure mattresses were set to the wrong body weight. Inspectors found no health impact for those people, but recommended a formal checking method.
“Pressure mattresses were not always set to people's correct body weight.” from the report
Prescribed thickener
needs fixingIn one dining room, a person's prescribed thickener was empty and staff used another person's thickener instead of getting the correct one.
“One person's thickener was empty and staff used another person's prescribed thickener without thinking to go and get the person's own carton.” from the report
PEG records
needs fixingFood and fluid records for one person with a PEG tube were not clear enough. Inspectors said records needed to be more accurate and consistent.
“Fluid and food charts for the person who had a peg site, needed to be clearer.” from the report
Weekend staffing concerns
needs fixingSome staff said sickness meant staffing levels were often lower at weekends and sometimes below assessed levels. The manager said staffing was monitored and extra staff would be provided if needed.
“They told us there had recently been a significant level of sickness and staffing levels were often lower at the weekends so they went below assessed staff levels.” from the report
Communication
minorSome staff said communication could be improved when changes were made. The manager and provider were working to involve staff more fully.
“All of the staff team felt changes were made for the better although some staff raised concerns that communication could be improved.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every pressure mattress is set to the correct person's body weight?
- 02What safeguards ensure each person receives their own prescribed thickener?
- 03How have you improved the accuracy of food and fluid records for people using a PEG tube?
- 04How do you maintain safe staffing levels when there is sickness, especially at weekends?
- 05What has been done to improve communication with staff when changes are introduced?
This inspection looked at all five CQC questions, and the overall Good rating continued from the previous inspection; Well-led improved from Requires Improvement to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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 Ambleside
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 October 2013.
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 Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.