CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Astor Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, detailed risk assessments, safe medicines systems and appropriate safeguarding procedures. Equipment, fire safety and infection control checks were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff were trained and supported, and the home worked with health professionals. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare and mobility.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and maintain relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, communication needs and health needs. There was a range of activities, although the programme had been disrupted during the pandemic and activities were mostly staff-led.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible management, good communication and regular audits. People, relatives and staff were able to give feedback, and the home used incidents and feedback to make improvements.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Astor Hall is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with activities disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 April 2022. One inspector spoke with 12 people, seven staff members and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect.
Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, detailed care plans and good links with health professionals. Infection prevention measures, including COVID-19 testing, protective equipment and visiting arrangements, were also in place.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the service consistently managed and providing good-quality, person-centred care. The previous inspection in 2017 also rated the service Good.
Detailed safety planning
Risk assessments were current and covered areas such as skin care, nutrition, personal care and mental health. Staff knew how to respond when people became distressed or anxious.
“Risk assessments were detailed and up to date which meant staff had guidance in how to manage people's care safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff spending time with people, chatting and offering comfort. People's privacy, dignity, choices and independence were respected.
“Staff enjoyed spending time with the people they supported and took time to sit and chat with people throughout the day.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, backgrounds and communication needs. Staff could access updated information about people's care.
“Care plans were person centred and detailed people's likes and dislikes and how best to deliver care and support.” from the report
Strong management
Inspectors found a positive culture, good teamwork and regular quality checks. Staff said managers were approachable and supportive.
“There was a person-centred culture which kept people at the heart of the service.” from the report
Activities had been disrupted
minorThe activity programme had been affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Inspectors said activities were mostly led by staff, so families should ask how well current activities match each person's interests and abilities.
“There had been some disruption to the activity programme during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the service had a range of activities and these were mostly staff lead activities.” from the report
- 01How has the activity programme changed since the inspection, and how are activities matched to each person's interests, abilities and preferences?
- 02How will you support someone whose physical disability, dementia or learning disability needs change?
- 03How do you make sure staff know about changes in a person's health, communication needs or care plan?
- 04How will family members be kept informed if their relative's health or support needs change?
- 05What infection control and visiting arrangements are currently in place?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures linked to COVID-19. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 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, November 2019
Astor Hall was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some staffing, building repair and care-record issues to monitor.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with nine people, two relatives and 10 staff. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs.
The home was still being repaired and refurbished. Some areas were in poor condition, and some staff said vacancies sometimes meant more staff were needed. Inspectors also found a small number of gaps in care planning and recording.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, respectful relationships between staff and people. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity and independence.
“We saw respectful interactions and laughter between staff and people.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were given by trained staff who had been assessed as competent. Risks such as falls, choking, nutrition and mobility were assessed and reviewed.
“Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Staff understood people's preferences, histories and communication needs. People were supported with hobbies, community activities and contact with relatives.
“People receive care and support in a way that was flexible and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Staff vacancies
needs fixingSome staff felt that more staff were needed at times because of vacancies. The home was recruiting and used agency staff when needed.
“However, some staff felt that due to staff vacancies, at times, more staff were required.” from the report
Repairs and bathrooms
needs fixingSome carpets, plasterwork and radiators needed attention. Two of the four bathrooms were not fully functioning, although a refurbishment plan was in place.
“Some areas of the home had undergone extensive repair and refurbishment, while other areas still required attention and were in a poorer state of repair.” from the report
Care plan recording
needs fixingOne care plan did not explain how staff should offer support in a way acceptable to a person at risk of self-neglect. People's involvement in developing care plans was also not always recorded.
“However, for one person at risk of self-neglect, their care plan did not describe how staff should offer support in a way the person found acceptable.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are normally on duty, and what happens when there are vacancies or staff absence?
- 02What is the current timetable for finishing the refurbishment, including the final six bedrooms and two bathrooms?
- 03How do you make sure electronic care plans explain support in a way each person finds acceptable?
- 04How do you record people's involvement in writing and reviewing their care plans?
- 05How do you check that activities continue to match each person's hobbies, interests and communication needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; the previous inspection rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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.
Every inspection of Astor Hall
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 November 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Plymouth
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.