CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Appletrees
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection was being prevented and controlled through visitor screening, PPE, testing, hygiene measures and an up-to-date policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed as a separate question, although inspectors considered how managers handled infection control and staffing during the outbreak.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control during a coronavirus outbreak, with a few records and cleaning points to monitor.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 21 January 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control because the home had experienced a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found visitor screening, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and infection control policies in place. They were assured that the home could prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
The home had used agency staff who worked only there, recruited new staff and worked with external health agencies. Some staff had not yet read and signed updated policies, and inspectors received mixed answers about the order for cleaning some areas.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating for the home overall.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors were screened for possible coronavirus symptoms and the visiting policy was based on the national guidance in place at the time.
“These were effectively implemented during our visit to the home and all visitors were screened for potential symptoms of Covid-19.” from the report
PPE and testing
The home had enough personal protective equipment and used it in line with national guidance. People living in the home and staff were included in regular testing.
“The provider ensured there was ample supply of appropriate personal protective equipment, and we observed staff using this in line with national guidance.” from the report
Staffing during the outbreak
When staff could not work during the outbreak, the provider used agency staff who worked only at the home and recruited new staff.
“The action taken by the provider had ensured the continued operating of the service by block booking agency staff who only worked in the service and recruiting new staff.” from the report
Management response
The manager worked with external health organisations and updated the infection control and coronavirus contingency policies.
“The registered manager had engaged effectively with external agencies such as Public Health England and the local Clinical Commissioning Group.” from the report
Updated policies not yet signed by everyone
needs fixingMost staff had read and signed the updated policies, but some had not done so when inspectors visited. The manager was taking action to complete this.
“Staff had been asked to read and sign all updated policies, which most had done.” from the report
Mixed understanding of cleaning order
minorStaff gave mixed answers about the order in which some areas should be cleaned. Inspectors were reassured that the enhanced cleaning schedule was being followed.
“Although we received mixed responses from staff about the order certain areas should be cleaned, we were reassured that the enhanced cleaning schedule was followed.” from the report
- 01How do you now screen visitors and manage visits during an infection outbreak?
- 02How often are people living here and staff tested, and what happens after a positive result?
- 03How do you check that every staff member has read and signed updated infection control policies?
- 04How do managers check that the enhanced cleaning schedule is followed in the correct order?
- 05How would you maintain staffing if several members of the usual team could not work?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care quality questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 2021 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 some improvements needed to hand-washing support and care records.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 21 August 2017. One inspector visited the home, spoke with staff and professionals, contacted relatives, observed care and checked care plans, staff files, medicines, safety records and quality checks.
The home provides care without nursing for up to eight people with a learning disability. Seven people were living there during the inspection. The inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, suitable training and good support with health, food and activities. Staff knew people well, respected their dignity and helped them communicate and make choices.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection in June 2015. Inspectors identified some shortfalls, including two occasions when people were not helped to access hand-washing equipment and care information that was difficult to find.
Staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs. Medicines were administered accurately and safely.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff and medicines were stored and handled safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's needs, communication styles and preferences. People were supported to make choices and live as independently as possible.
“People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Respectful relationships
Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. Staff understood people who used limited or no spoken communication.
“We observed some excellent interactions between people and staff that came naturally and provided a positive impact for people.” from the report
Activities and community life
People had individual activity records and were supported with trips, holidays, celebrations and community activities.
“There were activity records individual to each person that detailed what they liked to do.” from the report
Management oversight
The manager and senior staff carried out regular checks, recorded actions and sought feedback from people and those important to them.
“The service had robust monitoring processes to promote the safety and wellbeing of the people who use the services.” from the report
Hand-washing support
needs fixingBecause of risks to some people, soap, water and paper towels were not always freely available. Inspectors saw two occasions when people were not helped to access what they needed, and the manager changed the shift planner immediately.
“However, we saw on two occasions that people had not been supported by staff to access the equipment they needed.” from the report
Care information was difficult to find
needs fixingEach person's support information was spread across three large files. This made it harder for staff to locate a complete picture of the person's life, needs and preferences.
“This made it difficult to locate information needed to build a picture about the person's life, their needs, likes and dislikes.” from the report
One bedroom needed attention
minorOne person's room looked tired. The manager arranged refurbishment for September 2017, including changing the window glass so the person could see outside.
“However, one person's room looked tired and in need of attention.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to make sure each person is supported to access soap, water and paper towels when they need them?
- 02Have the new user-friendly and person-centred care plans been introduced, and how do staff find key information quickly?
- 03Was the planned refurbishment of the bedroom completed in September 2017?
- 04How are staffing levels adjusted when people are taking part in activities or going out into the community?
- 05How can relatives contribute to care plan reviews and raise concerns for someone who cannot communicate them easily?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating in June 2015 was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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 Appletrees
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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
42 live-in carers within about an hour of West Berkshire
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. 36 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“Titus has compassion, patience, a great sense of humour and a very professional attitude.”
“Barbara treated my mother-in-law with enormous love and compassion and provided an environment where she could feel safe and seen”
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.