CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Cinnamon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and risks were assessed and reviewed. However, inspectors found two gaps in one person's medicine administration record and noted that the fire risk assessment had last been completed by a fire safety professional in 2010.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, supervision and the skills needed to support people. People were supported with eating, healthcare, decision-making and developing their independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff being kind, patient and caring. People were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and supported to maintain important relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's individual needs and choices. People could follow their interests, attend activities in the community and receive information in accessible formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture and an established staff team. The provider and manager carried out checks and involved people and staff in running the home.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Cinnamon House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some medicines and fire-safety checks needing attention.
The inspection took place on 19 November 2019 and was unannounced. One inspector spoke with three people living at the home, a relative, staff and visiting professionals. The inspector also checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and happy. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, supported their choices and helped them develop independence.
There were some shortfalls. Two gaps were found in one person's medicine record. The fire risk assessment had last been completed by a fire safety professional in 2010. The home said it would address these issues. The previous inspection rating was also Good.
People felt safe and happy
People told inspectors they felt safe and happy. Staff understood safeguarding and knew how to raise concerns.
“People told us they felt safe and happy living at 50 Belle Vue Grove.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, patience and care. Staff supported people's dignity, relationships and independence.
“We observed staff were kind, patient and caring in their interactions with people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in planning their support and daily activities. Staff helped them build skills such as cooking, managing money and accessing local shops.
“People were supported by staff to maintain and develop their independent living skills.” from the report
Good staff training and support
Staff received role-specific training, supervision and appraisals. New staff worked alongside experienced colleagues until they felt ready to work alone.
“Staff had the skills and experience to support people well.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to follow hobbies and attend activities such as social clubs, libraries and the cinema.
“People were able to follow their hobbies and interests and were able to access a range of activities in the community.” from the report
Fire-safety assessment was old
needs fixingThe fire risk assessment had last been completed by a fire safety professional in 2010. The manager said this would be addressed.
“We identified the fire risk assessment for the service was last completed by a fire safety professional in 2010.” from the report
Medicine records and checks
needs fixingInspectors found two gaps in one person's medicine administration record. The last full audit by the manager had been in 2018, and the manager said checks would be increased.
“We found two gaps in one person's medicine administration record for one medicine.” from the report
Accessible complaints information needed updating
minorThe easy-read complaints procedure needed updating. The manager later sent information showing this had been done.
“We identified the easy ready version of the providers complaints procedure required updating.” from the report
- 01Has the fire risk assessment been completed by a fire safety professional since the inspection?
- 02What changes were made to prevent gaps in medicine administration records?
- 03How often are full medicine audits now carried out, and who reviews them?
- 04How are people involved in planning their support and choosing daily activities?
- 05How will you provide complaints information in a format each person can understand?
This was a planned but unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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, June 2017
Royal Mencap Society - 50 Belle Vue Grove was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
Inspectors visited on 7 June 2017 without warning. They spoke with all five people living there, the manager and two staff members. They reviewed three care plans, four staff files and the way medicines were managed.
They found that people's risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough trained staff. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities and daily choices. Staff knew people well and treated them with respect.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection on 26 March 2015.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and plans were in place to reduce them. Medicines were stored and administered safely, with staff training and checks.
“There were systems in place to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Respectful relationships
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity and independence. Inspectors saw warm, respectful interactions.
“Throughout the inspection there was lots of laughter between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's likes, dislikes, life stories and routines. Staff understood how each person preferred to be supported.
“The care plans were written in an individual and person centred way.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to cook, go out and take part in activities that interested them, including shopping, the gym, museums and day services.
“People attended a wide range of activities outside the service such as attending day services, visiting the cafe, shopping, or to play pool.” from the report
Open management
The manager used audits and feedback to monitor standards and make improvements. Staff were described as supported, and records were accessible and secure.
“We found these were well maintained, easily accessible and stored securely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you keep my relative's care plan up to date as their needs, preferences or routines change?
- 02How will you support my relative to make their own choices about medicines and daily care?
- 03What activities and community outings would be suitable for my relative's interests?
- 04How many staff will be on duty during the day and night, and how will one-to-one support be covered?
- 05How will you involve my relative, our family and health professionals in reviewing their care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection on 26 March 2015 also rated the home Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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 Cinnamon House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Middlesbrough
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 £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.