CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Christie Development Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from harm, risks were managed and there were enough suitable staff. Medicines, recruitment and infection control were also managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and support plans gave staff clear guidance. Staff had training and worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as caring and compassionate. People were treated with dignity, listened to and supported to make choices and build independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and reflected people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People were helped to maintain relationships, take part in activities and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive and open culture. Managers used audits, meetings, surveys and action plans to monitor quality and improve care.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 10 September 2019. One inspector spoke with five people, one relative and staff, looked at care and medicines records, checked the home and reviewed safety and quality information.
Inspectors found that people were safe and that there were enough suitable staff. Medicines, infection control and risks were managed well. People received effective support with their health, nutrition and daily choices, and staff worked with other professionals.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was personalised, communication needs were supported and people were helped to stay connected with family, friends and the community. The home was well managed, and all five CQC areas were rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous Good rating, published on 11 February 2017.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and found that medicines were given safely and as prescribed.
“People received their medication safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and choices, and encouraged independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised communication
The home assessed communication needs and used written, picture-based and other approaches to help people understand information.
“The provider responded well to people's communication needs.” from the report
Community and relationships
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends, use local services and take part in activities they chose.
“People were supported to be included in the community, establish relationships and avoid isolation.” from the report
No restrictive interventions
As part of a CQC thematic review, the inspection found that the home did not use restraint, seclusion or segregation.
“The service did not use any restrictive intervention practices.” from the report
Good management
Managers used checks, meetings, surveys and action plans to monitor the service and identify improvements.
“All information gathered on the quality of the service was analysed and used to plan future improvements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and support my relative's communication needs, including if they use little or no spoken language?
- 02How would you help my relative make daily choices and become more independent?
- 03How would you support my relative to keep in touch with family and friends and take part in activities they enjoy?
- 04How do you record and review changes in my relative's health, mobility, nutrition and support needs?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint, and who would handle it?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC key questions; the previous Good rating from 11 February 2017 remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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, February 2017
Christie Development Centre was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, with some medicines records needing improvement.
This was an announced inspection on 1 December 2016. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. Records for seven people were checked, including medicines, accidents and incidents.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, detailed risk assessments and care that respected people's dignity, choices and independence.
There were some areas to improve. The process for some as-needed medicines needed review, and paperwork requested by a health professional was not always completed or available. Inspectors also found that easy-read information was not used widely in all support records.
A previous inspection in April 2015 found a breach about missing mental capacity records. Inspectors found that the home had made improvements and that the relevant records were now available.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff responding quickly when people became upset or distressed and respecting privacy.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and treated them with respect and dignity, whilst maintaining their privacy.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records focused on what mattered to each person and were reviewed regularly. People were supported to pursue activities, goals and greater independence.
“People's support records were person centred and focused on what was important to them.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff received induction, training, supervision and opportunities to gain further qualifications.
“People were supported by staff who received an induction, were well trained and received regular assessments of their work.” from the report
Listening and improvement
The home used meetings, feedback and audits to involve people and identify improvements. It also used learning records to review what had gone well and what could be learned.
“There was a strong emphasis on continually striving for improvement, learning from mistakes made and acting on people's views.” from the report
Some as-needed medicines
needs fixingThe process for administering some as-needed medicines was not fully in place. Inspectors found no inappropriate administration, but the records and process needed to be made more complete.
“Safe procedures for the management of people's medicines were in place, although a review of the processes for the administration of some 'as needed' medicines was required.” from the report
Health monitoring paperwork
needs fixingA health professional said paperwork requested to monitor a person's progress was not always completed or available during visits. The manager had introduced new procedures in response.
“The paperwork they have asked them to complete to monitor the person's progress was not always completed or available when they come to visit.” from the report
Information in accessible formats
minorSome signs, symbols and pictures were used in support records, but this was not widespread. The manager was considering how to make records easier for people to understand.
“Some signs, symbols and pictures had been used; however examples of these were not widespread.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the process for recording and reviewing all as-needed medicines?
- 02How do you make sure health monitoring paperwork is completed and ready for visiting professionals?
- 03How will you make support records easier for people who need signs, symbols or pictures to understand them?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded and reviewed now?
- 05How are people involved in setting and reviewing their goals, activities and support plans?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service covering all five CQC questions, including discussions with people, relatives, staff and professionals and checks of seven people's records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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 Christie Development Centre
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.