CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Collins House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and inspectors found risk assessments, emergency plans and enough staff. Medicines were handled by trained staff and regularly audited.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, ongoing training and supervision. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare appointments and decisions under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. Staff knew people's needs and encouraged independence, privacy and choice.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's needs, preferences and routines and were regularly updated. People had a varied programme of activities, and complaints were responded to in a timely way.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team monitored the service through regular audits and had a clear oversight of care. Staff said information was shared well and that they worked together as a team.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 5 February 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience visited. They spoke with 16 people, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care files and other records.
The inspectors found that people were safe and that there were enough suitably checked and trained staff. Medicines were given by trained staff, risks were assessed, and systems were in place to prevent infections and learn from accidents.
People received personalised care and were involved in decisions about their support. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, good activities, support with food and healthcare, and regular management checks. All five areas were rated Good, the same overall rating as at the previous inspection published in April 2016.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments covered areas such as falls, nutrition and pressure sores, and individual fire evacuation plans were in place.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs, preferences and routines. They were reviewed and updated as people's needs changed.
“People's needs were consistently assessed and reviewed to ensure the care they received met their choices and needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff encouraged independence and supported people's privacy, dignity and choices.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in varied activities, trips and sessions with outside entertainers, schools and community groups.
“We saw that the activities staff arranged a varied program for people and also arranged for external entertainers to visit the service, as well as pets as therapy dogs.” from the report
Strong oversight
The management team used audits and other checks to monitor care, the environment and the running of the service. The report says issues found were acted on.
“The management team had a good oversight of what was happening in the service, and demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of all areas.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative if they needed a short-term rehabilitation or interim placement?
- 02How would you meet my relative's particular needs if they are living with dementia?
- 03How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs, preferences or routines change?
- 04What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you support them to take part?
- 05How would you support my relative and our family if end-of-life care became necessary?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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 Collins House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 April 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Thurrock
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 £1,210 a week. 86 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.