CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ducks Halt
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors only looked at the parts of safety linked to their specific concerns. They found people were protected from abuse and improper treatment, staff knew how to raise concerns, and infection control arrangements were suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, person-centred support plans and systems for sharing learning. Managers and staff had regular meetings, supervision and monitoring.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Ducks Halt was inspected but not rated; inspectors found people felt safe, received personalised support and were protected by improved oversight.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 02 March 2021. Inspectors looked at specific concerns about whether learning from an incident at another service had been shared across the organisation. They spoke with three people, the manager, the deputy manager and three care staff. They also reviewed staff files, support plans, audits and lessons learned.
Inspectors found systems had been put in place to share learning with staff. This included briefings, guidance, supervision and meetings. Staff had received extra training about restricted practices and closed cultures. There was also an independent way for staff to raise concerns.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy living there. Staff supported people's independence and provided personalised care. Infection control arrangements were also found to be suitable.
The home was inspected but not rated. Safe and Well-led were both marked 'Inspected but not rated' because only parts of those areas were checked. The previous rating was Good, published on 09 June 2018. A full rating will be considered at the next comprehensive inspection.
People felt safe and happy
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy living in the home. Inspectors also saw people enjoying staff company and taking part in activities.
“People we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the service and were happy.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff supported people to make choices, build confidence and become more independent. Support plans were tailored to individual goals and interests.
“Staff promoted people's independence and care was personalised to each individual person's needs.” from the report
Learning and speaking up
The provider had introduced ways to share learning and support staff to raise concerns. Extra training covered restricted practices and closed cultures.
“We found systems had been put in place to share learning with staff through briefings, guidance, supervisions and meetings.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including PPE, testing, visiting and hygiene.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now share learning from incidents across the organisation?
- 02How can people raise concerns privately, and how is the independent Freedom to Speak Up guardian used?
- 03How are people's weekly empowerment meetings and advocacy support used to influence their care?
- 04How do you make sure any restrictions are individual, necessary and reviewed?
- 05When agency staff are needed, how do you maintain consistency and make sure they know each person's needs?
This was a targeted inspection of specific parts of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; all key questions will be assessed at the next comprehensive inspection, and the previous ratings were not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2021 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but recommended improvements to staff training and wider opportunities.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 23 March 2018. Inspectors reviewed records, observed care, spoke with all three people living there, and talked with staff and the manager. They also contacted other health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff understood people's risks, managed medicines safely, supported people's choices and treated them with kindness and respect.
The home had changed from a nursing-led service to a residential service focused on independence. Inspectors found that this change was being introduced positively, although they recommended more specialist training and wider opportunities for people.
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained before administering medicines and their competence was checked regularly. Medicines were stored and recorded safely, including as-required medicines.
“Staff competently administered medicines to people during the inspection.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and responded calmly and compassionately when they became distressed. People said staff were kind and nice.
“We observed staff engaging with people that were becoming distressed and agitated. They demonstrated kind and respectful responses and the person responded well.” from the report
Personalised care
People helped shape their care, routines and activities. Staff supported individual choices, communication needs and independence.
“Staff involved people in planning their care including peoples preferences and how to support them to retain independence.” from the report
Supportive leadership
Inspectors found a stable team with shared values. Quality checks were in place and actions were taken when issues were identified.
“The registered manager had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and these worked well.” from the report
Specialist staff training
needs fixingStaff said they needed more training in autism and some mental health conditions. Inspectors recommended that the provider review training for people with complex learning disabilities and mental health needs.
“We recommend that the provider review the training needs of staff working with people with complex and specific learning disabilities and mental health problems” from the report
Bereavement support
needs fixingInspectors found that staff had not considered whether a new assessment for bereavement counselling might help one person. The manager said this would be looked into.
“They had not considered they potentially needed to revisit and explore whether a new assessment for bereavement counselling could be supportive.” from the report
Wider opportunities
needs fixingSome educational and work opportunities had ended, and holidays and longer-term goals had not all been explored. Inspectors recommended reviewing outside support networks and best practice.
“We recommend that the service review the current best practice guidance and support networks to ensure that people are enabled to reach their potential in line with their goals and wishes.” from the report
- 01What specialist training have staff now completed in autism and the mental health conditions affecting people living here?
- 02How do you assess and support people who are experiencing bereavement?
- 03What holidays, education, work or community opportunities are currently available to each person?
- 04How do you support people who want to live closer to relatives or with a partner?
- 05How has the move from nursing-led care to residential care changed the support available?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and the ratings remained Good in every area from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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 Ducks Halt
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 November 2012.
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.