CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Eretz
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding procedures, risks were assessed, and medicines were administered by trained staff. Inspectors noted occasional problems when the scheduled sleep-in person for an adjacent flat cancelled.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, regular training and supervision, including training for specialist needs. Inspectors found that healthcare, nutrition and consent needs were being supported, although maintenance records did not always clearly show when issues had been completed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind, patient, respectful and knowledgeable about the people they supported. The rating fell from Outstanding because inspectors found no current examples of exceptional practice, not because they found an overall decline in care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed, and activities reflected people's abilities, preferences and wellbeing. The complaints process was accessible and no formal complaints had been made in the previous 12 months.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager was experienced, approachable and supported by auditing and improvement systems. The manager was still completing registration for this home, and one relative had not yet received communication from the new manager.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Eretz rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records and staffing points to improve.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 October 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with staff and managers, reviewed records for three people, and considered feedback from families, advocates and visiting professionals.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found trained staff, safe medicines practice, personalised care, suitable activities and systems for checking quality.
Caring was lowered from Outstanding to Good. This was not because the quality of care had declined. Inspectors said they had not been given current examples of exceptional practice to support an Outstanding rating.
Safe medicines
People received medicines safely from trained staff whose competence was checked. No medicine administration errors had been reported in the previous 12 months.
“People continued to be given their medicines safely by staff who were appropriately trained to administer medicines and whose competency to do so was tested regularly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, respect and dignity. They supported people to communicate, make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, preferences, communication and abilities. Staff responded to changes in wellbeing and involved people and others in reviews where possible.
“People's care plans focused on what they could do and how staff could help them to maintain their independence and protect their safety wherever possible.” from the report
Activities and choice
The home offered regular and flexible activities based on people's abilities, preferences, choices, moods and wellbeing. People were supported to attend organised day activities when needed.
“The service continued to provide people with an activities programme which responded to their abilities, preferences, choices, moods and well-being.” from the report
Night staffing cover
needs fixingNight cover was considered adequate, but it could become difficult when the scheduled sleep-in person for an adjacent flat cancelled. The manager knew about this and planned to address it.
“There was adequate night cover but this could occasionally become problematic when the scheduled sleep in person for the adjacent flat cancelled.” from the report
Maintenance records
minorThe maintenance log did not always make clear whether reported issues had been completed. The manager said the recording would be made clearer.
“However, it was not entirely clear from the maintenance log when issues had been addressed.” from the report
Training records
minorA small number of online training sessions appeared overdue, although the manager said this was affected by problems recording completed e-learning.
“with a low number of e-learning sessions showing as overdue.” from the report
Communication records
minorSome interpretations of people's communication choices could have been recorded more clearly in their care plans.
“We noted that interpretations of some people's communication choices could be better recorded in their care plans.” from the report
- 01How do you cover night shifts when the scheduled sleep-in person for the adjacent flat cancels?
- 02How do you check that maintenance problems have been completed and recorded clearly?
- 03How do you keep online training records accurate when completed e-learning is not recorded properly?
- 04How are each person's communication methods recorded so that all staff interpret their choices consistently?
- 05How will the manager's registration for this home be completed, and how will families be kept informed during the change?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five quality areas; it used a shorter report format because the overall rating had not changed, while the Caring rating had fallen from Outstanding to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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 Eretz
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.