CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Carseld Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines were mostly managed safely, but some instructions and records were missing. Inspectors also found no evidence of simulated fire evacuations and limited evidence that accidents, incidents and falls were analysed for lessons.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices and health needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff training was generally comprehensive, although their knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and related safeguards was limited.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. Inspectors saw calm, friendly interactions, and people and relatives spoke positively about the care and support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, up to date and accurate. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, complaints and their individual preferences.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open, positive culture and approachable management. However, action taken after quality audits was not always recorded clearly or shown as completed.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Carseld Residential Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found that safety systems needed improvement.
This was the first inspection since the service registered under a new provider. It was unannounced and took place on 22 June 2023. Inspectors spoke with 12 people, three relatives and six staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because some medicine information was missing, fire evacuation checks were not evidenced, and accident and incident records were not being fully analysed.
People were described as safe, well cared for and treated with dignity. There were enough staff, care was personalised, and the home was clean and tidy. Inspectors also found a positive culture and good links with health professionals.
The provider acted during the inspection on several issues. CQC made recommendations about medicines, staff knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and the way quality improvements are recorded and followed up.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Requests for help were answered promptly.
“People and relatives told us enough staff were on duty to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and staff took time to build relationships. Relatives spoke highly of the caring approach.
“There was a person-centred culture. People received care from caring, compassionate and motivated staff who were proud to work for the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and ways of communicating. Care plans gave clear guidance about individual support.
“Care plans were person centred, up to date and accurate. They gave clear information how to support people in the way they preferred.” from the report
Positive management culture
Staff described management as approachable and supportive. Inspectors observed good relationships between people and staff.
“Morale within the service was good and the culture was open and relaxed.” from the report
Medicine records and instructions
needs fixingInstructions for medicines needed at specific times were not always available. Records for prescribed thickeners were incomplete, although the manager took action during the inspection.
“Instructions for medicines which should be given at specific times were not always available.” from the report
Fire evacuation evidence
seriousThere was no evidence that staff had completed simulated evacuations. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“There was no evidence to support staff completing time simulated evacuations.” from the report
Learning from incidents
needs fixingThe home recorded accidents and incidents, but there was little evidence that it looked for patterns, trends or lessons to prevent future events.
“There was minimal evidence to support the monitoring and analysing of accidents, incidents or falls.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act knowledge
needs fixingStaff knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and related safeguards was limited. CQC recommended that the provider improve checks on staff competence and knowledge.
“Staff's knowledge of The Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and how this would inform their practice was limited.” from the report
Quality improvement records
needs fixingThe home carried out audits, but it did not always record the actions needed or show that improvements had been completed.
“Where required improvements to the service had been identified through quality auditing, action was not always evidenced on the action plan.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to make sure medicines given at specific times have clear written instructions?
- 02Have all staff completed and recorded simulated fire evacuations, and how often are these checked?
- 03How do you now analyse accidents, incidents and falls to identify patterns and lessons?
- 04What training and checks have staff completed about the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 05How do you record actions from audits and confirm that each improvement has been completed?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises, care and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 July 2023 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 Carseld Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 June 2022.
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
32 live-in carers within about an hour of North Lincolnshire
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. 29 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
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.