CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Enright View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk plans, stable staffing, safe medicines management, infection control measures and systems for learning from incidents.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. A previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. A previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. A previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found sustained improvements in leadership, staff support, communication and quality monitoring. People and relatives were involved in giving feedback and making changes.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Heathcotes Enright View is rated Good; inspectors found safe care and stronger leadership, with some staff training still ongoing.
This was a focused inspection on 14 April 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because the inspection followed concerns about staffing, training and supervision. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staffing had become more stable, medicines were managed safely, and incidents were reviewed for learning. The home was clean and well maintained, and infection control arrangements were in place.
Inspectors also found better leadership, staff support and quality checks. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in September 2019. The other areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“All relatives we spoke with told us they thought people were safe living at the service.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Only trained and assessed senior staff administered them.
“People received their medicines safely. Storage, administration and recording of medicines was safe.” from the report
Person-centred support
Support plans reflected people's wishes, choices and changing needs. People were supported with independence, activities and future plans.
“Care was person-centred to support human rights and maximise choice, control and independence.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Incidents were reviewed, discussed with staff and analysed for patterns and improvements.
“Incident forms were analysed on a monthly basis to identify improvements that could be made.” from the report
Experience and specialist skills
minorA relative said some staff were young and had limited experience when they started. Another relative raised a lack of specialist training and support in some areas.
“A lot of the staff are very young and don't have much experience when they start.” from the report
- 01Which staff training for people's specific needs was still outstanding, and has it now been completed?
- 02How do you support new or inexperienced staff before they work independently?
- 03What specialist training and support is available for the needs of the person we are considering placing here?
- 04How are staffing levels and staff turnover being monitored now?
- 05What were the results of the recent surveys of people, relatives and staff?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 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, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; the home left special measures after improvements, but safety, effectiveness and leadership still need work.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive inspection visit on 16 and 17 July 2019. They reviewed records, medicines, recruitment files and management information. They observed care and spoke with a person, staff, managers and health professionals.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. Staff numbers, risk management, training, incident reviews and partnership working had improved. People were treated kindly, involved in decisions and supported to be more independent. However, staff turnover remained high, food stocks had been low, some records were incomplete and staff confidence and morale were still concerns.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home was no longer in breach of regulations or in Special Measures, but inspectors said more time was needed for improvements to become consistent and lasting.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw relaxed, positive interactions. People said staff respected their privacy and dignity.
“We observed positive interaction of staff with people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in planning their care and activities. Staff supported people to gain skills, make choices and live more independently.
“There was a clear focus on promoting people's independence.” from the report
Improved risk management
Risk assessments and incident reviews had become more detailed. Staff had improved their use of positive behaviour support, and physical intervention for one person had reduced.
“Improvements had been made to the incident forms.” from the report
Improved training and induction
New staff received training and shadowed experienced staff before working independently. Supervision and competency checks had also increased.
“Improvements had been made to the induction of new staff.” from the report
Activities and community access
People were offered hobbies, outings and activities suited to their preferences and mood.
“People received opportunities to pursue activities, interests and hobbies.” from the report
High staff turnover
needs fixingFrequent staff changes sometimes affected consistent care. Not all staff felt confident supporting people with challenging behaviour.
“There continued to be a high turn over of staff.” from the report
Food supplies
needs fixingInspectors found food stocks were low, repeating a concern from the previous inspection. The provider said after the inspection that the food budget had been increased.
“We found food stocks were low and this was a repeated concern from our last inspection.” from the report
Incomplete care and health guidance
needs fixingSome records did not contain enough detail or were not fully up to date. This included missing outcomes from a health review and insufficient guidance about what to do if a person's mental health worsened.
“One person's support plan for mental health needs, lacked guidance for staff about the action required if the person's mental health deteriorated.” from the report
Medicines record inconsistencies
minorMedicines were generally given safely, but some best-practice records were inconsistent. Examples included missing body-map information and some medicines not being dated when opened.
“Whilst staff were on the whole following safe protocols for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines, there were some minor inconsistencies.” from the report
Staff morale and fairness
needs fixingStaff described low morale and some felt they were not treated fairly, valued or respected. Inspectors said more time was needed to develop a stable staff team and embed improvements.
“Staff expressed concerns about not being fairly treated and valued.” from the report
- 01How have you reduced staff turnover, and how do you make sure new or transferred staff have the right checks, training and confidence?
- 02What has changed since the inspection to ensure food stocks are always sufficient for people's needs and choices?
- 03How do you check that care plans and mental health guidance are complete, current and understood by every staff member?
- 04How are medicines records checked now, including body maps for creams and dates when medicines are opened?
- 05What action has been taken to improve staff morale, fairness and communication between staff and managers?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided; two people were living at the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 September 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 Enright View
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 April 2018.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.