CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Annefield House Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, staff understood safeguarding, risks were assessed and medicines were given by trained and competent staff. Staffing and recruitment arrangements were also found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People received appropriate support and access to healthcare, but the environment needed improvement. Worn carpets, damaged ceilings, old furniture and mattresses affected cleanliness, comfort and safety.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, respectful and friendly. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and needs. People were supported with activities, relationships, community access and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and staff were positive about the management. Audits, meetings and incident reviews were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Annefield House Limited was rated Good overall, but inspectors found the environment needed improvement and Effective was Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 October 2019. The inspector spoke with seven people and three staff, observed medicines being given, and checked care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's mental health needs, risks were assessed, medicines were given safely, and there were enough staff. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, see healthcare professionals and take part in activities.
The main weakness was the building. Inspectors found worn carpets, damaged ceilings, old furniture and mattresses that needed replacing so they could be cleaned properly. The home was asked to include these matters in its refurbishment programme. The overall rating stayed Good, but Effective fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff and robust recruitment arrangements. Medicines were administered safely by trained staff, with regular audits.
“People were supported by enough staff who were well trained, kind and caring and knew people well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors observed a calm atmosphere and good relationships between staff and people.
“People were supported by staff who routinely promoted privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, interests and needs. People were supported to make choices, remain independent and maintain relationships.
“People received personalised support from staff.” from the report
Open management
The home had systems for checking care, incidents and the building. Staff said they felt supported, and managers showed a commitment to learning.
“There was an open culture focussed on continual learning and improvement.” from the report
Environment and furnishings
needs fixingSome parts of the building were worn or damaged. Furniture and bed mattresses needed replacing, including to make cleaning effective.
“The environment was in need of some improvements. There were worn carpets and damage to the ceiling in one of the toilet areas.” from the report
Mattresses needed replacing
needs fixingInspectors specifically found that some mattresses needed replacement so they could be cleaned properly.
“Bed mattresses needed replacing so they could be cleaned effectively.” from the report
- 01Have the worn carpets on the stairs been replaced, and if not, when will this happen?
- 02Have the old furniture, damaged ceiling and bed mattresses identified by inspectors been replaced?
- 03What actions were included in the refurbishment programme, and which actions are still outstanding?
- 04Why did the Effective rating fall from Good to Requires Improvement, and what evidence shows that this has improved?
- 05How are you checking that the environment remains clean, safe and comfortable for people?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but recruitment checks were still not fully thorough.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 1 March 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with nine people, staff and managers, and checked care records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were positive about the care and management.
Inspectors found improvements since November 2014. Medicines management, mental capacity assessments and quality monitoring had improved. However, two staff files did not include a full employment history, so recruitment checks were not always thorough.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw calm interactions, respect for privacy and support for independence.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped write their care plans, which included their likes, preferences and support needs. Staff supported cultural, religious and personal choices.
“Two people told us that the staff from Annefield House Limited wrote their care plans 'with' them and not 'about' them.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk support
Medicines were stored securely, records were accurate and staff followed guidance for medicines given when needed. Risk assessments helped people remain as independent as possible.
“This showed that people were supported to take their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to continue hobbies, visit local places, attend the gym and maintain family relationships.
“This demonstrated that people were supported to maintain their interest and hobbies.” from the report
Open management
People and staff found managers approachable. Meetings, surveys and audits gave people ways to influence the service and helped identify improvements.
“The provider had a system in place to assess and monitor the quality of care provided.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingBoth staff files checked lacked a full employment history. This meant the provider was not always completing thorough checks that staff were suitable to work with people.
“However, both staff files did not have a full employment history in place.” from the report
- 01Have full employment histories now been obtained and checked for every member of staff?
- 02How do you make sure recruitment checks remain complete before new staff start work?
- 03How are medicines given when needed, and how do you check that the instructions remain up to date?
- 04How are decisions made for people who may lack mental capacity, including any restrictions on their freedom?
- 05How are people's views, activities and changing needs recorded and acted on?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions, including checks of three care records and two staff employment records. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 April 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 Annefield House Limited
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
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 £1,260 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
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.