CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Apple Tree House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Apple Tree House: inspected but not rated; fire safety improvements met a warning notice, but one fire door was still outstanding.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 20 October 2022. One inspector spoke with two staff members, reviewed documents about the warning notice and toured the home.
The inspection looked only at concerns about fire safety under the Safe question. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and that the warning notice had been met.
The home was not given a new overall rating. Its previous rating was Requires Improvement, published on 10 September 2022, and that rating remains in place until a full inspection.
Fire safety work started
The provider commissioned an external contractor to carry out the required fire safety work.
“The provider had commissioned a contractor to undertake required fire safety work.” from the report
Warning notice met
Inspectors found that the provider had taken action to correct the fire safety shortfalls identified at the previous inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the warning notice had been met.” from the report
One fire door outstanding
needs fixingAll fire doors had been replaced except for the one serving an upstairs office. The manager said arrangements were being made to complete this work.
“all fire doors had been replaced by an external contractor except for an upstairs office, the manager confirmed they were arranging for this final piece of work to be completed.” from the report
- 01Has the upstairs office fire door now been replaced, and when was the work completed?
- 02What action was taken to address all the high-risk fire hazards identified in the previous fire risk assessment?
- 03How are fire doors and other fire safety arrangements checked and maintained now?
- 04When will the next comprehensive inspection assess the home's full Safe rating and the other questions about care?
This was a targeted inspection of fire safety under the Safe question only; it did not assess the whole Safe question or the other key questions, so the previous Requires Improvement rating remains. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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, September 2022
Apple Tree House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but serious gaps in safety and management.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 20 and 21 July 2022. They observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive care. People were treated kindly, supported to make choices, helped with health appointments and supported to take part in activities suited to them.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Fire safety problems had not been fixed, some restrictions on people's access were not shown to be proportionate, and checks on the water system were not always completed. The systems for finding and fixing these problems were not effective enough.
This was the first inspection under the new provider. The previous rating, under the former provider, was Good and was published on 29 January 2020. The CQC required an action plan and said it would return under its reinspection programme.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people looking relaxed and happy with staff. Relatives described staff as kind, caring, respectful and patient.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in everyday decisions and were supported to develop independence, pursue interests and personalise their rooms.
“The service supported people to have choice, control and independence.” from the report
Personalised activities
People took part in activities suited to their interests, including swimming, college, cafes, walks, trips out and shopping.
“People were supported to plan their weeks and attend activities of their choosing.” from the report
Medicines support
Medicines were stored securely, recorded and given as prescribed. Staff were trained and their competence was checked.
“Medicines were stored securely and administered safely. People had secure medicines storage cabinets in their rooms.” from the report
Fire and premises safety
seriousHigh-risk issues in the fire risk assessment had not been dealt with within a reasonable time. Hot surfaces had not been risk assessed or protected, and water-system checks were inconsistent.
“The provider failed to rectify these shortfalls, within a reasonable timeframe.” from the report
Restrictions on people
seriousSome people had restricted access to the kitchen, food and drinks. Inspectors found insufficient evidence that these restrictions were proportionate or the least restrictive option.
“People were not fully protected from the risk of improper treatment.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not reliably identify and fix the safety and restriction problems. This led to a breach of good governance requirements.
“The systems were not fully effective in ensuring shortfalls were identified and addressed.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingThere were many vacancies and the home relied on agency staff. Staff shortages sometimes meant people could not attend planned activities, particularly when two-to-one support was needed.
“There were a high number of staff vacancies due to staff leaving and the service was currently reliant on agency staff to cover the vacant shifts.” from the report
Complaint monitoring
minorFormal complaints were investigated, but day-to-day concerns were not formally monitored so the provider could check how they were resolved.
“Day to day concerns were not formally monitored to enable provider oversight of these complaints and how they had been resolved.” from the report
- 01Have the fire safety issues identified in the risk assessment, including the fire doors, now been fixed and checked?
- 02What restrictions are currently placed on my relative, and how have you shown that each one is proportionate and the least restrictive option?
- 03How do you check the water system for legionella risks, and can I see the recent records?
- 04How many permanent staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff used?
- 05How do you make sure people still attend planned activities when two-to-one staffing is needed?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection under the new provider and covered all five key questions; it included infection prevention and control checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 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.
Every inspection of Apple Tree House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2020.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.