CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Essington Manor Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, safeguarding procedures were in place, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. Equipment, infection control and emergency plans were also checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction and ongoing training. People received suitable food, support with health needs and access to health professionals, and mental capacity and best-interest decisions were recorded when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives were happy with the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect, offering choices and encouraging independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, detailed and regularly updated. People had activities, communication support and a complaints process, although no formal complaints had been made since the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as approachable and staff felt supported. Quality checks and a service improvement plan were in place, and feedback from people and relatives was used to make changes.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Essington Manor Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with major improvements since the previous inspection.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 13 February 2019. Two inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, recruitment files and management audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were adequate and infection control procedures were followed.
People received care that reflected their needs and choices. Inspectors found staff were kind and respectful, supported independence, offered activities and helped people access healthcare and suitable food.
The previous inspection in January 2018 rated the home Requires Improvement and found breaches linked to quality assurance. At this inspection, the provider had made considerable improvements and there were no longer any breaches.
Improved oversight
The home had addressed the quality assurance problems found at the previous inspection. Inspectors found that improvements were being identified and acted on.
“At this inspection, we found that the provider had made considerable improvements and there were no longer breaches of the regulations.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff were available and that people did not have to wait for support. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff available for people and they did not have to wait for support.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spent time talking with people, offered choices and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“We saw staff chatting and laughing with people throughout our inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and communication methods. Staff knew people well and activities reflected their interests.
“People had care plans which were personalised, detailed and regularly updated.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
People were supported to see health professionals when needed, and referrals were made for specialist advice.
“People had access to healthcare professionals and their health was monitored within the home.” from the report
Some audits were still developing
minorThe report says quality checks were effective, but audits had not yet been introduced in every key area. This was described as ongoing development rather than a breach.
“The registered manager identified this was an area they were continually developing and audits were to be introduced in other key areas.” from the report
- 01Which quality checks and audits are now completed, including in the areas that were still being developed?
- 02How do you check that staffing levels remain enough for people, especially at busy times?
- 03How are medicines audits used to identify and correct problems?
- 04How are people's activities, communication needs and care plans reviewed when their needs change?
- 05What support can you provide with end of life care if it becomes necessary?
This inspection looked at the overall service and all five rating areas; end of life care was not reported on because the home was not supporting anyone with it at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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, February 2018
Essington Manor Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care but ongoing concerns about medicines, risk checks, staff training and management systems.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 January 2018. Two inspectors and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records and management documents.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, especially its activities and support for people living with dementia. However, medicines were not always recorded correctly, risks were not always reviewed after changes, and some agency staff and other staff did not have all the training or information they needed.
People were generally treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to stay independent. They enjoyed the food and activities, and could access health professionals when needed.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were rated Good. This was the second consecutive Requires Improvement rating.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were happy with staff. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance, protecting privacy and dignity, and involving people in everyday choices.
“This meant people were supported in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Improved activities
The home had appointed an activity coordinator and people had more opportunities to take part in activities they enjoyed.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made the necessary improvements.” from the report
Food and choice
People enjoyed the food and were offered choices. Special diets and individual preferences were provided for.
“At breakfast and lunchtime we saw people were offered a choice and had a range of different meals.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and well presented. Infection control procedures were in place and followed by staff.
“There were infection control procedures in place and the home was clean and well presented.” from the report
Access to health support
People received help from health professionals when needed, and the home worked with those professionals.
“People received support from health professionals when needed.” from the report
Medicines records and procedures
seriousA tablet that was not given had been signed for as given. Another person had medicines at a table without a risk assessment or staff supervision, creating a risk that someone else could take them.
“This meant that records were not always completed in line with guidance as this medicine had been signed for before it had been administered safely to the person.” from the report
Risk assessments were not kept up to date
seriousInspectors found that changes in people's risks were not always reflected in reviews or care guidance. This included concerns about a person who was unsteady and falling.
“Individual risks to people had been considered however risks assessments were not always reviewed after changes occurred.” from the report
Staff training and agency induction
needs fixingSome staff supported people without relevant training. An agency worker had only received information about the building and did not have the necessary information to support a person at risk of falls.
“Although they had received a walk round induction that related to the environment, they had not received an induction that related to people who used the service.” from the report
Capacity and best-interest decisions
needs fixingCapacity assessments were not always specific to the decision being made, and records did not always show why decisions were in people's best interests.
“We recommend that the provider seek advice and guidance from a reputable source, to assess the capacity in relation to specific decisions for people living at the home.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousAudits were missed and the information collected was not consistently used to identify trends, learn from incidents or make changes. Feedback from families was not always followed by action.
“Quality monitoring systems were in place however this information was not consistently completed or used to drive improvements within the home.” from the report
- 01What checks now ensure every medicine given, missed or dropped is recorded accurately?
- 02How are changes in a person's mobility, falls or other risks recorded and reviewed?
- 03How do you make sure agency staff receive information about each person's needs before their first shift?
- 04What training and competency checks are required before staff support people with specific needs?
- 05How do you record actions from incidents, audits and feedback from people and relatives, and check that improvements are completed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and both the accommodation and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 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 Essington Manor Care Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 October 2016.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.