CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Community Places
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe medicines, missing risk checks and weak oversight, although staffing and safeguarding were strengths.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 21 and 30 November 2022, spoke with family members and staff, observed care, walked around the home, and checked medicines, care plans, recruitment files and incident records.
The home supported 12 people with a learning disability or autistic people. Inspectors found problems with medicines, infection control, risk assessments and the review of accidents and incidents. Staff did not always help people take part in activities or communicate their choices effectively.
There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Families said they could raise concerns and were involved in decisions. The home was open about the problems and took some immediate action after the inspection.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2018, to Requires Improvement. The report says the provider must improve safety and management, and that CQC will monitor progress.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff recruitment checks were also completed properly.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of people who lived in the service.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff had training and understood how to recognise and report abuse and protect people from harm.
“Staff received appropriate training and were knowledgeable about how to protect people from the risk of abuse and harm.” from the report
Family involvement
Families were involved in decisions and discussions with health and care professionals. They could raise concerns with the manager.
“The service engaged and involved people using the service and their families.” from the report
Open management
Managers accepted that improvements were needed and had a clear plan for the direction of the service.
“The management team were open and honest throughout the inspection and feedback process.” from the report
Medicines
seriousMedicines were not always stored, given or recorded safely. One person received antibiotics for longer than prescribed, and some records were incomplete.
“People had not received their medication as prescribed.” from the report
Risk checks
seriousImportant risks had not been assessed, including risks from bed rails, a profiling bed and window restrictors. Cleaning products and sharp objects were not always stored safely.
“People were not always safe because not all risks had been assessed to keep people safe.” from the report
Infection control
seriousInspectors found poor storage of soiled bedding, worn mattresses and dirty or rusty shower chairs. Infection control was not managed effectively.
“Effective infection prevention and control measures were not in place.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousAudits failed to identify problems with medicines, infection control and incident reviews. Accident and incident forms were not always reviewed promptly, so learning was not clear.
“Governance systems were not effective to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report
Activities and communication
needs fixingStaff did not always engage effectively with people about activities. On one occasion, a person's communication system was not taken when they went out.
“Staff did not always engage with people effectively so that they could take part in a range of activities.” from the report
Laundry
minorSome families said clothes were not always washed or ironed properly. One family said clothes were sometimes shrunk in the dryer.
“Family members told us that people's clothes were not always washed and ironed correctly.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine administration, storage, stock counts and MAR chart checks?
- 02How are risks from bed rails, profiling beds, mattresses and window restrictors now assessed and reviewed?
- 03What has been done to replace worn mattresses and clean or replace the shower chairs?
- 04How are audits and incident reviews now checked so that problems lead to changes in practice?
- 05How will staff make sure each person is supported to choose activities and has the communication aids they need when going out?
This was an unannounced focused inspection prompted by concerns about seclusion; inspectors reviewed Safe, Effective and Well-led, but the report gives ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led, with no evidence that seclusion had been used. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 2023 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, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some end-of-life plans still needing more detail.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors reviewed information about the home, the provider's return, parts of the building, care records, staff recruitment files and management records. They spoke with people living there, care staff, the cook and the registered manager.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines systems and detailed care plans. People were treated with kindness and supported with their health, food, activities, relationships and independence.
The home was clean, spacious and personalised. Complaints were investigated, quality checks were used to make improvements, and staff worked with health and social care professionals. The report says all fundamental standards were being met.
Enough suitable staff
The report found safe recruitment and enough staff to meet people's needs. Staffing could be increased if people's needs changed.
“Staff were recruited safely. There were enough staff to provide people with the care and support they needed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with patience, dignity and compassion. People appeared comfortable and relaxed with staff.
“People using the services told us they liked the staff and found them attentive and kind.” from the report
Personalised activities
People received one-to-one support for activities suited to their interests. The home supported trips into the community, allotment work and greater independence.
“All the people who lived at Community Places received one to one support which ensured activities were personalised and specific to each person.” from the report
Improved consent arrangements
The previous problem with best-interest decisions and legal safeguards had been addressed. Inspectors found the home was working within the Mental Capacity Act.
“The service was acting within the Mental Capacity Act.” from the report
Quality checks led to action
The home used audits and reviews covering areas such as care plans, medicines, training and safety. Identified issues were added to action plans.
“Effective quality assurance systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Some end-of-life plans lacked detail
minorSome people's end-of-life plans contained only limited information. The manager said this was ongoing work, so families should check how and when these plans will be completed.
“For others the plans contained minimal details. We spoke to the registered manager, who told us this was an ongoing piece of work and they wanted everyone's plans to be detailed.” from the report
- 01How are you completing and reviewing the end-of-life plans that still have limited detail?
- 02How would staffing levels change if a person's care or support needs increased?
- 03How do you keep consent assessments, best-interest decisions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards arrangements up to date?
- 04How are each person's one-to-one activities chosen and reviewed?
- 05What actions are currently open from your care-plan, medicines, training or environmental audits?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the building and care provided across all five CQC questions; the report gives conflicting visit dates, stating 22 and 30 August in one section and 22 and 29 August in another. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 October 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 Community Places
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 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
At least 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.