CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cascade (Cohen House)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, safe medicines management, clean surroundings and a proactive approach to managing individual risks. Staffing was adjusted to people's needs, although high staff turnover had previously been an issue.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on detailed assessments and involved other professionals. People were supported with complex health needs, healthy eating, communication, consent and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, supported to communicate and encouraged to develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and regularly reviewed with people, relatives and professionals. Complaints and informal concerns were recorded and used to identify learning, but community activities could be developed further.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear values, motivated staff and systems for monitoring quality. A registered manager was not in post, and inspectors found some very minor improvements were needed in quality monitoring.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor improvements still needed in management systems and community activities.
This was the home's first rating inspection since it registered in December 2017. One inspector visited on 29 January 2019, with one day's notice because some people needed support to prepare.
The inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, training, complaints and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found positive risk-taking, safe medicines, effective support for health needs, kind staff, person-centred care and an open management culture.
The report also noted that a registered manager was not yet in post. It identified very minor improvements to quality monitoring and said meaningful community activities could be developed further.
Positive risk taking
Staff worked with people to manage risks while supporting choice, rights and independence. Inspectors saw examples of this reducing hospital readmission and helping people move towards independent living.
“There was a strong emphasis on human rights and a positive approach to risk taking which helped to safeguard and enhance the quality of people's lives.” from the report
Effective health support
The home supported people with complex health, dietary and mental health needs. Inspectors found this led to very positive outcomes, including reduced distress and lower medicine use for some people.
“The service provided effective care which delivered very positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Relatives, professionals and the inspector described staff as committed and genuinely interested in improving people's lives. Staff respected privacy and dignity.
“Staff treated people kindly. All the professionals and relatives we spoke with all mentioned how hard staff worked to ensure people living in the service had a good quality of life.” from the report
Personalised communication
The home used tools such as social stories and visual information to help people express views, understand situations and take part in decisions.
“Various communication tools were utilised in order to aid people to express their views and be involved in their care.” from the report
Purpose-built environment
The building included spaces and features designed around people's needs, such as a sensory room, sensory garden, quieter areas and a separate one-to-one kitchen.
“The home had been carefully purpose built to meet people's specific needs.” from the report
Registered manager not yet in post
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the time of inspection. A manager had been appointed and was submitting a registration application.
“A registered manager was not in post.” from the report
Quality monitoring
minorInspectors found some minor improvements were needed to make monitoring systems more robust, including notifications about events at the home.
“There were some very minor improvements needed to ensure these were as robust as possible.” from the report
Community activities
minorA relative and two professionals felt there was room to improve how people were supported to take part in meaningful community activities. The home had started exploring local resources.
“One relative and two health and social care professionals we spoke with raised minor issues regarding how people were supported to engage in meaningful community activities.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's registration application now been completed and approved?
- 02What changes have been made to the quality monitoring system since the inspection?
- 03How does the home now make sure all required events are notified to the CQC?
- 04What meaningful community activities are available for people, and how are their interests used to plan them?
- 05How does the home help people access independent advocacy when needed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions and both the premises and the care provided; it was the home's first rating inspection since registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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 Cascade (Cohen House)
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 2017.
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.