CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ceely Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found risk assessments, safe recruitment, secure medicines storage and staff trained to recognise abuse. However, staffing was not always sufficient and one medicine record lacked important information until it was corrected.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff training was up to date and staff understood mental capacity and best-interest processes. People received support with food, drink, health appointments and advice from professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed dignified, sensitive and respectful care, with communication methods adapted to each person.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. People took part in activities in the home and community, and relatives said they were involved and kept informed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Relatives and staff described the registered manager as approachable and the home as open and supportive. Audits and feedback systems were in place, although the approach to gathering people's own views was being reconsidered.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Ceely Road was rated Good; inspectors found kind, effective care, but staffing levels did not always give people enough support.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 6 March 2018. Inspectors looked at the building and care for six adults with learning disabilities. They spoke with staff, relatives and a health professional, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staff and safety records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found trained staff, safe recruitment, clear care plans, support with health needs, and respectful care.
There was one important staffing problem. At some times, one staff member was left supporting people while also cooking or cleaning. People could have minimal supervision for about an hour and a half. The provider told inspectors after the visit that extra cleaning staff would be employed and staffing would be increased.
Most medicine records were accurate, but one record did not contain enough information to give medicine safely. Staff corrected this during the inspection. Infection control had improved since November 2015, although an audit had not identified that part of a bathroom needed a more thorough clean.
Kind and respectful care
Relatives spoke warmly about staff, and inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and sensitivity.
“From our observations we saw staff interacted with people in a positive and sensitive way. Interactions were meaningful and respectful.” from the report
Communication support
The home used communication profiles, objects, pictures and Makaton to help people express themselves and make choices.
“The provider trained staff in the 10 key facilitation skills used to aid communication with the people they support.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to take part in community activities and new experiences, including swimming, horse-riding, dining out and family visits.
“People were encouraged to participate in community experiences regardless of their abilities.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals to support people's physical and mental health.
“This demonstrated how effective teamwork with outside agencies had enhanced the quality of life for the people who used the service.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingOne medicine record did not contain enough information to make sure medicine could be given safely. Staff corrected the record before the inspection ended.
“Insufficient information had been recorded on the chart to ensure safe administration.” from the report
Cleaning checks
minorInfection control had improved, but the audit did not identify that parts of the bathroom needed a more thorough clean.
“However, this had not been identified on the audit.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingNo one was receiving end of life care, and people did not have end of life care plans. The manager said the home planned to explore ways to create suitable plans.
“At the time of the inspection, no one was receiving end of life care. People did not have end of life care plans in place.” from the report
- 01What extra staffing and cleaning hours were introduced after the inspection, and how do you make sure people are not left with minimal supervision?
- 02How do you now check that medicine administration records contain all the information staff need?
- 03What changes have been made to infection-control audits so that cleaning problems are identified promptly?
- 04How are you developing end of life care plans that reflect each person's communication needs and wishes?
- 05How can people living here give their own views about the service if they cannot complete written questionnaires?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, but inspectors could not speak directly with people living in the home because of communication barriers. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 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 Ceely Road
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 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 was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.