CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Delamer House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received their medicines when they should and staff recruitment checks were safe. However, legionella risks, fire risk actions and the formal review of unwitnessed falls were not always handled properly, although inspectors found no evidence that people had been harmed by the environmental checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had good access to healthcare, food and drink, and staff had suitable training. Some parts of the building needed updating, the dementia area lacked suitable signs, and oral healthcare assessments did not always contain enough detail.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and professionals said staff were kind, caring and compassionate. Inspectors found that people's dignity, independence, personal relationships and involvement in care were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and covered people's needs, preferences and routines. They were not always updated when people's needs changed, but inspectors found that staff knew people well and care was not affected.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems and audits were in place, but leadership knowledge of regulatory responsibilities was not always up to date. Some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards notifications had not been sent, and unwitnessed falls were not always formally analysed.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective, caring and responsive care, but leadership required improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 and 14 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management documents.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found that people received their medicines on time, had good access to healthcare, were treated kindly and respectfully, and could take part in activities.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The registered manager did not always have up-to-date knowledge of regulatory responsibilities. Some required notifications had not been sent, unwitnessed falls were not always formally analysed, and some environmental checks were incomplete. The overall rating stayed Good, but it was lower in well-led than at the previous inspection.
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found organised medicines systems, accurate stock levels and records showing that people received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines systems were organised, and people received their medicines when they should.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and supportive. Inspectors found that dignity, independence and important relationships were maintained.
“People's dignity and independence was always maintained and upheld by staff.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with health professionals and supported people's health and nutritional needs.
“People had good access to healthcare services and support.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join in activities inside and outside the home and were supported to remain connected with their community and important relationships.
“People, relatives and staff spoke highly of the activities that were offered.” from the report
End of life planning
End of life plans were in place, and families and professionals spoke positively about the support provided.
“The end of life care is very good, everything needed is in place” from the report
Management knowledge and legal notifications
seriousThe registered manager did not always have up-to-date knowledge of regulatory responsibilities. Not all authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards notifications had been sent to the CQC.
“The registered manager could not always demonstrate they had up to date knowledge and understanding of their regulatory responsibility.” from the report
Falls were not fully analysed
seriousThe home recorded accidents and incidents, but did not always formally analyse unwitnessed falls to identify repeated patterns or risks.
“They did not always collate and formally analyse unwitnessed falls to identify any common themes.” from the report
Environmental safety checks
needs fixingRisks linked to legionella had not been properly assessed by a competent person. Fire risk actions had also not initially been completed, although the assessment was updated after the inspection.
“Risks associated with legionella had not been identified.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
needs fixingThe dementia area was maintained but did not have enough signs to help people find their way. Some carpets and furnishings in the main house also needed updating.
“A separate house supports people living with dementia. The environment was well maintained but lacked dementia friendly signs to support people.” from the report
Care and oral health records
minorCare plans were not always updated when people's needs changed. Oral healthcare assessments did not always give staff enough detail.
“However, they had not always been updated to reflect people's changing needs, but this had not impacted on the care provided as staff knew people well.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure all authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards notifications are sent on time?
- 02How are unwitnessed falls now reviewed and analysed, especially for people who fall repeatedly?
- 03Has a competent person completed the legionella risk assessment for both buildings?
- 04What improvements have been made to dementia-friendly signs, worn carpets and furnishings?
- 05How are care plans and oral healthcare assessments checked and updated when people's needs change?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC question areas; all areas were inspected, with Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive remaining Good and Well-led falling to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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, May 2017
Delamer House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with only occasional waits for call bells.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 November 2016. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living there, relatives, visitors, volunteers, staff and the manager. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, risk assessments, staff files, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas. They found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines systems, appropriate risk assessments and good support for people's health, food and drink needs. Staff understood safeguarding and the rules about making decisions for people who could not make some decisions themselves.
People were described as being treated with kindness and respect. Their choices, preferences, friendships, faith and activities were supported. The manager was visible and approachable, and the home had systems for listening to feedback and checking the quality of care.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and safe recruitment checks, including references and DBS checks. Staff had the skills and knowledge needed to support people safely.
“There were sufficient staff who had been recruited safely and who had the correct skills and knowledge to provide care and support in ways that people preferred.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People's health conditions and nutritional risks were recorded and monitored. Staff worked with health professionals and understood individual dietary needs.
“People's health needs were managed effectively with input from relevant health professionals and people had sufficient food and drink that met their individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, patient interactions. Staff respected privacy, dignity and personal choices, including for people living with dementia.
“All the staff, including the domestic team, kitchen staff and care workers, worked in a steady, efficient manner carrying out their individual roles effectively as well as talking with people and giving them time when they needed to talk.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could choose whether to join activities and what they wanted to do. The home supported friendships, family contact, faith and links with the local community.
“The service offered people who lived there a wide range of activities and experiences.” from the report
Visible management
The manager knew people well, was present during the day and encouraged staff to provide person-centred care. Feedback from people, relatives and staff was positive.
“The registered manager was visible throughout the day and was always inquiring if there was anything anyone needed; from the responses we observed this was normal and expected behaviour.” from the report
Occasional waits for help
minorOne person said they sometimes waited longer for a call bell response during busy periods such as mealtimes. Most people were happy with staff response times, and inspectors still found staffing levels sufficient.
“One person told us that sometimes they would have to wait a bit longer when they used their call bell during busy periods such as mealtimes.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure call bells are answered promptly during busy times such as mealtimes?
- 02How would you manage my relative's nursing needs, given that the home does not provide nursing care?
- 03How would you support a person living with dementia in the shared areas, as the home does not have a separate dementia unit?
- 04What activities would be available if my relative did not want to join group activities?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in reviewing the care plan when their needs or preferences change?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and providing ratings for each. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 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 Delamer House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 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 Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.