What the CQC found at Colchester

Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly. People appeared comfortable, happy, engaged and stimulated.

“Staff were kind, and caring and as a result we saw people were at ease, happy, engaged and stimulated.” from the report

The home had enough staff to meet people's needs, including extra one-to-one support for anxiety, day care and community activities.

“The service had enough staff on duty to meet people's needs, including additional 1-1 hours to support people to manage anxieties and have a good day” from the report

Inspectors found recruitment systems and required checks were in place to help ensure staff were suitable to work at the home.

“The service had effective recruitment systems in place which ensured the right staff were recruited.” from the report

The home and shared facilities were clean and hygienic. People's rooms were personalised and described as modern and homely.

“People's accommodation was personalised to them, clean, modern, and homely.” from the report

People's representatives gave generally positive feedback about the care and their relationships with staff.

“They reflected relatives were generally happy with the care their [family member] received and had good relationship with staff.” from the report

Concerns about unsafe restraint and moving and handling were not referred to the local authority or reported to CQC as required. This meant lessons were not learned promptly.

“However, no safeguarding referrals had been made to the local authority, and CQC had not been notified as required” from the report

Guidance for people at risk of choking was inconsistent, and only three staff had the relevant food and drink support training at the time of inspection. A previous choking incident had not been fully reviewed.

“Information in people's care plans, key work folders and located in kitchens was inconsistent and did not provide clear guidance for staff” from the report

Records for controlled medicines were incomplete. There were also gaps in guidance for a pain patch and morphine, and temperature checks for an overflow medicines cupboard were not routinely completed.

“Improvements were needed to ensure records contained accurate information about people's medicines to ensure these were administered correctly and accounted for.” from the report

Audits did not identify safeguarding, choking, medicines or evacuation risks. There was no overarching improvement plan and incident systems were not being used effectively.

“The provider did not have robust and effective systems in place to assess, monitor and drive improvement in the quality and safety of the service.” from the report

Video monitors used to detect seizures in private rooms were not covered properly by the relevant deprivation of liberty assessments. The provider also lacked robust policies for CCTV and recording equipment.

“these people's DoLS assessments had not included, or granted the use of video monitors in people's private rooms to deprive them of their human right to liberty and privacy.” from the report