CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Auburn Mere
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staff knew how to report possible abuse, and there were enough suitably skilled staff. Medicines were administered and recorded safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training and supervision. People were offered choices, supported to eat and drink well, and helped to access healthcare services.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient, kind and compassionate. Inspectors found that people's privacy, dignity, independence and relationships with family and friends were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people and relatives were involved in planning and reviews. The home offered regular activities, community outings and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and approachable management, a positive culture and systems to check the quality and safety of care. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was used to support improvements.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Auburn Mere is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong management.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 18 December 2018. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care plans, observed care and mealtimes, and checked other information about the service.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines practices, reviewed risk assessments and appropriate recruitment checks.
People were supported with food, healthcare, choices and personal care. Staff were described as kind and respectful. Care plans included people's histories and preferences, and people were offered activities in the home and community.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection. Inspectors said the evidence continued to support this rating and found no serious risks or concerns from the inspection or ongoing monitoring.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff whose competence had been checked. Inspectors saw that administration records and stock balances were checked.
“We observed staff administering medicines and saw that they checked all the details before administering the medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them patiently. Inspectors saw friendly, caring and compassionate relationships.
“The relationships between people and staff were friendly, caring and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, interests, likes and dislikes. People and their relatives were involved in planning and reviewing support.
“Support plans were very detailed and included information about what was important to the person, for example their life histories, interests and likes and dislikes.” from the report
Quality checks
The management team used audits, questionnaires and feedback to monitor the service and identify improvements.
“There was a range of quality assurance processes in place to continually monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative if they were unsure about what their medicines are for?
- 02How would you adapt activities to my relative's abilities, interests and changing needs?
- 03How would you record and respect my relative's advance planning and end of life wishes?
- 04How often would you involve me and my relative in care plan reviews?
- 05If an audit identified a shortfall in care or records, what action would be taken and how would we be told?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the Good ratings in all areas were maintained from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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 Auburn Mere
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 June 2018.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £980 to £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.