CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 82 Chaucer Road
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2020
CareTech Community Services Limited - 82 Chaucer Road was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff but unsafe medicines management and weak oversight.
Inspectors visited the home over three days. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, audits and other documents.
The home supported eight younger adults with a learning disability or autism. Inspectors found enough staff and a kind, established team. People were supported with food, healthcare, communication, choice, privacy and independence.
However, medicines records and risk assessments were not always safe or up to date. Some areas needed deep cleaning and repair. Staff did not always receive the right training or supervision. People were not consistently supported to achieve meaningful goals or take part in their community.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Requires Improvement. This was a fall from Good at the previous inspection in 2017. The provider breached Regulation 17 on good governance because audits and oversight did not identify or address important problems.
Kind, familiar staff
Staff knew people as individuals and used their preferred ways of communicating. People and relatives were positive about the care they received.
“People were supported by a kind and compassionate staff team who had gotten to know them as individuals.” from the report
Enough staff
People, relatives and staff said staffing levels were sufficient. Rotas also showed that there were enough staff to support people safely.
“People and relatives told us that there were enough staff to support them safely.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were offered choices about daily life and were supported to do tasks such as cooking, cleaning and shopping where they could.
“People's independence was promoted.” from the report
Health and diet
People were supported to access health professionals and to eat and drink a varied diet. Staff also helped people make healthy choices and exercise.
“People were supported to see professionals such as GP's, dentists and psychiatrists, depending on their needs.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousSome as-needed medicines were given without enough guidance for staff. Inspectors said this created a risk that people could take medicines when they did not need them.
“People were taking PRN medicines with no guidance or protocols in place for staff to follow.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not identify important problems with medicines, the environment or staff supervision. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.
“Audits were either not completed or were ineffective in identifying issues at the service.” from the report
Out-of-date risk information
seriousSome risk assessments no longer reflected people's needs or were not followed. This included a medicines-related assessment where required health monitoring was not recorded.
“Some risk assessments were not relevant for people's current support needs or were not being followed by staff members.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
needs fixingSome training needed renewal, and staff had not received training in autism support or oral health care. Senior staff were not receiving supervision as required by the provider's policy.
“Staff members had not received training in supporting people living with autism or oral health care.” from the report
Limited meaningful activities
needs fixingPeople's goals were repeated rather than developed, and some people spent much of their free time relaxing at home. They were not consistently supported to try new activities or become part of their community.
“People were not always being supported to achieve more meaningful goals and goals were not discussed with people throughout the year.” from the report
Poor condition of parts of the home
needs fixingSeveral areas needed repair, redecoration or deep cleaning. The conservatory was not fit for purpose and was also being used for storage.
“Many areas of the service needed redecoration and repair.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every as-needed medicine has clear guidance and a current protocol?
- 02How are risk assessments now reviewed when a person's support needs change, and how do you check staff follow them?
- 03What training and regular supervision do staff now receive, particularly about autism, oral health and the Mental Capacity Act?
- 04What meaningful goals and community activities are being offered to each person, and how is progress recorded?
- 05Which repairs, redecoration and deep-cleaning work identified in the report has been completed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the premises; the inspection also included telephone calls with relatives and a later review of staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 2020 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, June 2017
CareTech Community Services Limited - 82 Chaucer Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong leadership.
Inspectors visited on 10 and 15 May 2017 without advance notice. They observed care, spoke with people, staff and other professionals, and reviewed care records, recruitment files, rotas, training and quality checks.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness, involved in decisions and supported by staff who understood their needs. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, training and healthcare arrangements were found to be managed well.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Each rating was recorded as remaining Good.
People felt safe
Risk assessments were in place and staff understood how to protect people while supporting their independence. Inspectors also found robust safeguarding arrangements.
“Robust systems were in place for ensuring people were kept safe and free from harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with compassion, respected their privacy and supported them to express their views and make choices.
“People were treated with compassion and kindness on a consistent daily basis.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans gave detailed guidance about people's needs, preferences and daily routines. People and, where appropriate, their families were involved in reviews.
“Care plans contained detailed information about people's health and social care needs and were individualised and appropriate to each person.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors found a person-centred and inclusive culture. Audits led to improvement plans with named actions and timescales.
“Regular checks on the quality of service provision took place and results were acted upon to improve the standard of care people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you involve my relative and our family in writing and reviewing their care plan?
- 02How will you support my relative to take medicines safely and, where appropriate, manage some medicines independently?
- 03How will you review and update risk assessments if my relative's needs or behaviour change?
- 04Which activities and day services would be available based on my relative's interests?
- 05How would we raise a concern or complaint, and how would you show us what action was taken?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions and reviews of care, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 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 82 Chaucer Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.