CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bishop Herbert House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, safeguarding, staffing, medicines, infection control and the environment were managed safely. Staff were recruited safely and available when people needed help.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training, supervision and support. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff treated them with respect and kindness. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and dignity while encouraging independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with their interests, hobbies, activities, community access, concerns and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were described as accessible and supportive. Audits identified shortfalls, and records showed that action was taken to improve the service.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Bishop Herbert House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a minor gap in recording informal concerns.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 8 October 2018. They spoke with six people, one relative, staff, managers and community professionals. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and other safety and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, protected their dignity, supported their independence and helped them take part in activities and community life.
The home had systems for managing risks, medicines, staffing, training and safeguarding. Managers used audits and reviews to identify and address shortfalls. The report also says the home was developing how it recorded informal comments and concerns.
Individual risk planning
Risk assessments were tailored to individuals and kept up to date. They gave staff clear guidance on how to support people safely.
“Risks assessments were completed, individualised and up to date.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff using respectful communication and protecting people's privacy and dignity.
“People told us the staff treated them with respect and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's preferences, histories, hobbies and important relationships. Staff supported people to pursue interests and take part in activities.
“People's care records were personalised focussing on positive and enabling language and outcomes for people.” from the report
Active oversight
Managers used regular audits and reporting to monitor quality and safety. The report says identified shortfalls were acted on promptly.
“There was a regular programme of internal and external audits.” from the report
Informal concerns recording
minorThere had been no formal complaints, but managers said they were still developing the process for recording informal comments and concerns.
“The management team advised they were developing their process for capturing informal comments and concerns to develop the service.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and follow up informal comments or concerns?
- 02How will you assess and review the specific risks and support needs of my relative?
- 03What activities and community access could my relative take part in?
- 04How would you support my relative's medicines, diet and healthcare needs?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service, including premises and care, and all five key questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 2018 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 Bishop Herbert House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 April 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.