CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 20 Alder Close March
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, detailed risk assessments and safe medicines arrangements. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns, incidents and accidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and worked with health and social care professionals. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and day-to-day choices in line with mental capacity law.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood how people communicated, involved them in care decisions and supported their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's needs and interests. Staff offered flexible routines, activities in the home and community, and support to maintain friendships and family relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open communication, positive feedback and systems to monitor quality. However, there was no registered manager at the inspection, and the current manager was applying to register.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Cambridgeshire County Council - 20 Alder Close March is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and management arrangements still being updated.
This was a planned inspection of a short-stay care home for up to five people with learning disabilities. Four people were staying there at the time. The inspector visited on 15 April 2019 and reviewed care records, medicines, incidents, complaints, audits and how the home was managed. They also spoke with people, staff, relatives and another care professional.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control and suitable risk assessments. People were treated kindly, involved in decisions and supported to be independent, enjoy activities and keep important relationships.
Some work was still under way. Care plans were being rewritten to make them more up to date and personal. The current manager was applying to register with the CQC after the previous registered manager left. Inspectors also found that a possible need for legal authorisation had not initially been identified for one person, but managers acted straight away to review this.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Staff had relevant training and knew the people they supported well.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were calm, friendly and sensitive. They supported privacy, dignity and independence rather than focusing only on what people could not do.
“Staff were respectful when they spoke about people and mindful of people's privacy when providing personal care.” from the report
Personal activities and choice
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, including trips into the community, sports and hobbies. Routines such as meals were flexible.
“Staff encouraged and enabled people to be as active as possible.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Managers used audits and feedback to check the service and acted when issues were found. They introduced extra checks between services.
“There were systems in place to check the quality of the service.” from the report
Manager registration
needs fixingThe home did not have a registered manager at the inspection. The current manager said they were applying to register with the CQC.
“The last registered manager left the service in December 2018 when the current manager took up post.” from the report
Care plans being rewritten
needs fixingCare plans were being completely revised so they would be more up to date and individual. Ask to see how this work was completed after the inspection.
“The operations manager told us people's care plans were being completely revised to ensure they were up-to-date, and more individualised.” from the report
Possible authorisation not initially identified
needs fixingInspectors found that staff had not raised a possible need for legal authorisation for one person. Managers put a review system in place during the inspection.
“During our inspection we identified that staff had not raised the possible need for a DoLS authorisation for one person.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans now been fully rewritten, and how are families involved in reviewing them?
- 02Has the current manager completed their application to register with the CQC?
- 03How do you check whether a person needs legal authorisation when their freedom is restricted?
- 04How will you match staffing levels and staff experience to my relative's needs during each short stay?
- 05How will you support my relative's preferred activities, friendships, communication and independence?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the home does not provide nursing care. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 May 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Rated Good overall; the home improved its approach to decision-making, but Effective remains Requires Improvement until the next full inspection.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 16 June 2017. Inspectors checked whether the home had improved staff knowledge and practice under the Mental Capacity Act after concerns at the previous full inspection.
The home provides respite accommodation and personal care for up to five people with learning disabilities. Two people were staying there during this inspection. The inspector spoke with one person, reviewed four care records and spoke with five members of staff and managers.
Inspectors found that the home had followed its action plan. Staff understood how to support people who could not make particular decisions, and applications for restrictions on liberty had been submitted. People were supported to make everyday choices.
The overall rating was Good. The Effective question was rated Requires Improvement, although inspectors found the required improvements had been made. This rating will be reviewed at the next comprehensive inspection.
People's choices respected
People were supported to choose when they got up and went to bed, how they spent their time and what they ate. Staff adapted choices when people might otherwise feel overwhelmed.
“People were encouraged to make choices about their everyday lives.” from the report
Restrictions kept to a minimum
Where restrictions were needed for safety and wellbeing, inspectors saw that applications had been submitted and that restrictions were minimal.
“We saw that any restrictions on a person's liberty were minimal and were a considered element of the care that people needed.” from the report
Previous shortfall under the Mental Capacity Act
seriousAt the previous comprehensive inspection, people were not protected against the risks of unlawful restrictions on their freedom. The current inspection found that the provider had acted on this concern, but the Effective rating remains Requires Improvement until it is reviewed.
“At our comprehensive inspection on 12 September 2016 we found that people were not protected against the risks of unlawful restrictions on their freedom.” from the report
- 01What evidence will you provide that the improvements under the Mental Capacity Act have been maintained?
- 02How do you assess whether a person has capacity to make a particular decision?
- 03How do you involve relatives and relevant professionals in best-interest decisions?
- 04What restrictions on people's liberty are currently in place, and have the required applications been submitted?
- 05When will the home's Effective rating be reviewed at a comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Effective and the Mental Capacity Act only; the other areas were not assessed in this report and the previous comprehensive report should be read for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 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 20 Alder Close March
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodEffective: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 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.