CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ann Coleman Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment, infection control and accidents were managed through checks and monitoring.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before moving in and care plans were reviewed. Staff had relevant training and supported people's nutrition, healthcare, independence and legal rights.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions, had privacy and were supported to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records reflected people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, family relationships and community links, and there had been no complaints in the previous 12 months.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Experienced managers and staff supported a calm, person-centred service. Regular audits, feedback and action plans were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with the building larger than current best-practice guidance suggests.
Inspectors visited on 12 March 2020. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed people's experiences, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People appeared relaxed and comfortable. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them stay independent.
The home had enough regular staff, safe medicines systems and suitable risk assessments. People were supported with food, healthcare, communication, activities and relationships. The building was larger than current best-practice guidance recommends, but inspectors found it met the needs of the people living there.
Consistent staffing
The home had enough staff, including regular bank and agency cover. Several staff had worked there for many years, giving people familiarity and consistency.
“Several staff had worked at the service for many years. This provided consistency and familiarity” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Inspectors found that staff were patient, listened to people and respected their privacy and dignity.
“During the inspection people appeared relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff. Staff were kind and caring towards people” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and medicines records showed that medicines were given as prescribed. Medicines were stored safely and checked regularly.
“Medicines administration records (MARs) were accurate and showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Building design
minorThe building was larger than most domestic properties and did not meet current best-practice guidance. Inspectors nevertheless found that it met the needs of the people living there.
“The building was larger than most domestic properties, which meant it did not meet current best practice guidance” from the report
Future end-of-life wishes
minorNo one was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection. The provider was still considering how to explore people's wishes if they became seriously ill or died.
“The provider was considering meaningful and sensitive ways of exploring people's wishes if they were to become seriously ill or die.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative's specific communication needs, including any use of easy-read information, pictures or PECS?
- 02How would you support my relative if changes to their routine caused distress or challenging behaviour?
- 03How many regular staff would support my relative, and how would cover be arranged when staff are absent?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in care reviews and decisions about their daily routines and activities?
- 05How would you explore and record my relative's wishes about serious illness or end-of-life care?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, including the care provided and the care home's premises; the previous overall rating and all five question ratings were also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 2020 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements in management since the previous inspection.
The inspection was announced 24 hours beforehand because an unfamiliar visitor could upset one person. One inspector visited on 9 August 2017. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals, and checked care records, staff files, training, rotas, medicines and management records.
The home supported five people with autism, although it was registered for up to seven. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines systems and clean, well-maintained accommodation. Staff were trained, knew people well and supported their choices, communication, health needs and independence.
Care was described as caring, respectful, flexible and centred on each person. People were offered activities at home and in the community, and their views were used to make changes. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
At the previous inspection, some policies and environmental risk assessments were not being reviewed regularly. The home had acted on its improvement plan, and inspectors found these documents were now up to date. No breaches were found at this inspection.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's communication methods, interests, preferences and support needs. Staff used this information to provide consistent care.
“Each person had detailed care plans in place that identified how their assessed needs were to be met.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw calm, sensitive interactions. Staff understood what could make people anxious and took steps to prepare them for unfamiliar visitors.
“Staff were friendly, kind and discreet when providing care and support to people.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities inside and outside the home. Staff also helped people build and keep their independence.
“Promoting people's independence was a key theme running through people's care records.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had addressed the earlier problem with overdue policies and risk assessments. It had also introduced wider feedback surveys and acted on audit findings.
“We found policies and procedures and, environmental risk assessments had been reviewed and kept up to date.” from the report
Staff vacancies and agency use
minorThere were staff vacancies, covered by existing and agency staff. Agency use was higher over the summer, and the manager said arrangements would be reviewed.
“There were some staff vacancies which were covered by existing staff and agency staff.” from the report
- 01How many staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's communication needs, routines and risk assessments?
- 03How often are policies and environmental risk assessments reviewed, and who checks that this happens?
- 04What changes were made after the feedback surveys from people, relatives and staff?
- 05How will you make sure people who do not enjoy group activities receive suitable individual activities?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 September 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 Ann Coleman Centre
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2010.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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 £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.