CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Argyle Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Two window openings were above recommended guidelines and a bath hoist that had failed an external safety check was in use. Risks were assessed and staff were available, but improvements were needed to care plans and medicines records.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The report nevertheless records kind, respectful staff and positive relationships with people.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The report says feedback was encouraged and used to make improvements.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers did not have reliable oversight of audits, care plan reviews, training records, safety checks or falls analysis. This led to a breach of Regulation 17, Good Governance.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but safety checks and management oversight were not reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 December 2022. Inspectors spoke with six people and six staff, observed communal areas, and checked care records, medicines records and management records.
The home was clean and well maintained. People said they felt safe, staff were kind and knew people well, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were generally managed safely, and infection control arrangements were satisfactory.
However, some environmental and equipment safety checks had not been completed. Some care records lacked consistent detail, and medicines records needed minor improvements. Management checks did not reliably identify these problems or show how risks and repeated falls were being addressed.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2017 to Requires Improvement. The Safe and Well-led ratings were both Requires Improvement. The other three question areas were not inspected and carried forward from the previous rating.
Kind, person-centred staff
People and staff had positive relationships. Staff were described as kind, knew people well and respected their equality characteristics.
“People and staff were observed to have positive relationships. Staff spoke to and about people with kindness.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. People said staff responded quickly when they needed help.
“There were enough staff to meet the needs of the people using the service.” from the report
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Previous safeguarding concerns had been reported and investigated appropriately.
“People told us they felt safe using the service.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks and using protective equipment safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Feedback was acted on
People, relatives and staff were asked for their views. The home acted on feedback, including a request for new décor.
“Feedback was encouraged and used to help make improvements.” from the report
Environmental and equipment safety
seriousSome safety checks had not been completed. Two window openings exceeded recommended guidelines, and a bath hoist that had failed an external safety check was being used.
“A bath hoist which had failed an external safety check was in use. This placed people at potential risk.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits did not cover all important risks and did not always identify problems found by inspectors. This increased the risk that safety issues would remain unnoticed.
“The provider's governance systems had failed to identify and mitigate these risks.” from the report
Care plans and training records
needs fixingCare plans did not always contain consistent detail or get reviewed on time. The training system did not clearly show which staff training was overdue.
“Not all care plans had been reviewed consistently, with one not reviewed since August 2022.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingMedicines were generally managed safely, but room temperatures were not routinely recorded and some medicines profiles were missing.
“We identified some improvements were required to ensure room temperatures were routinely recorded and everyone had a medicines profile in place.” from the report
Falls monitoring
needs fixingFalls were reviewed monthly, but the records did not analyse possible patterns or trends that might help prevent falls happening again.
“Some people at the service had frequently fallen, this audit had not explored any potential themes or trends to help prevent re-occurrence.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed since the inspection to make sure window restrictors and other environmental safety checks are routinely checked?
- 02How do you now make sure every care plan is reviewed on time and contains the detail needed for specific health conditions?
- 03How are medicines room temperatures and medicines profiles recorded and checked?
- 04How do you monitor staff training so you know when online training is due or overdue?
- 05How are falls now analysed for patterns and used to reduce the risk of further falls?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2023 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, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but some people said they sometimes waited for staff help.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 October 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and a health professional. They observed care, medicines being given and daily interactions. They also checked care plans, risk assessments, staff records and quality checks.
Inspectors found enough staff on duty during the visit, safe medicines systems and suitable recruitment checks. Care plans were personalised and updated. Staff were trained and supported, and people could access health professionals. Food and drink met people's needs.
People described staff as kind, patient and respectful. The home supported people's choices, privacy and dignity. Activities were personalised, and complaints were recorded and dealt with. The home was rated Good in all five areas and overall. It was also rated Good in all areas at the previous inspection in July and August 2015.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking calmly and respectfully. People were treated with patience, dignity and consideration.
“People had their dignity promoted by staff who demonstrated a strong commitment to providing respectful, compassionate care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, personal histories and changing needs. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“People's needs were assessed and their care plans provided staff with clear guidance about how they wanted their individual needs met.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered, audited and reviewed through established systems. Staff involved in medicines had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were managed safely in accordance with current regulations and guidance by staff who had received training to help ensure safe practice.” from the report
Open leadership
People and staff described the management as approachable and supportive. The home used audits and meetings to monitor its service.
“This demonstrated an open and transparent service and good, effective and visible leadership.” from the report
Waiting for help at busy times
minorSome people said they sometimes waited for staff assistance when staff were busy. Inspectors found staffing was sufficient during the visit and said rotas were adjusted when needs increased.
“To be honest, I think there are times when they could do with more staff, when they're very busy.” from the report
- 01How many staff are usually on duty at busy times, and how quickly are call bells answered?
- 02How do you adjust staffing when people's care needs increase?
- 03How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 04How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
- 05What activities are available for someone with my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection in 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 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 Argyle Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 2011.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.