CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Falcons Rest and Poachers Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's health and safety risks were assessed and staff had clear guidance. Inspectors found some windows did not meet safety regulations and said immediate action was taken to fit restrictors and address wardrobe safety.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's health, communication, autism and sensory needs. Staff were trained, supported people with food and healthcare, and worked within the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People received kind and compassionate care. Staff respected privacy, dignity, equality and personal choices, while encouraging people to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and included communication plans, activities and contact with family. One relative wanted their family member to have more opportunities to go out and take part in activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found stronger leadership, clearer communication and systems to monitor quality and learn from incidents. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found personalised, kind care, with some improvements needed around safety checks, activities and choice.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 20 July 2023. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about staff practices. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern. They did find some safety issues with windows and wardrobes, and some people could benefit from more one-to-one support and greater involvement in food choices.
Personalised support
Care and support were built around people's needs, wishes, strengths and communication styles. Staff were said to know people well.
“People received personalised care and support built around their needs and wishes.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found staff treated people with compassion, protected their dignity and supported their independence.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Clear communication support
People had individual communication plans, and staff understood how each person communicated and what they might be trying to express.
“People had individual communication plans that detailed effective and preferred methods of communication, including the approach to use for different situations.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had systems to monitor quality, respond to concerns and learn from incidents. Staff said communication and involvement had improved.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and identify areas of improvement.” from the report
Safety checks
needs fixingSome windows were not compliant with safety regulations. The home took immediate action to fit restrictors and address the risk from wardrobes not being secured to walls.
“We found some windows were not compliant with safety regulations.” from the report
Limited one-to-one time
minorStaff said people would benefit from more one-to-one staffing hours so they could do more activities and visits without sharing a staff member.
“Staff told us people would benefit more if they were able to get more 1:1 staffing hours support for people.” from the report
Choice of meals
minorSome people in Falcons Rest said they did not have input into food choices. Staff had suggestions for improving people's involvement, and meetings recorded some menu suggestions.
“However, in Falcons Rest, some people told us they did not have an input into food choices.” from the report
Family information
minorMost relatives said they were kept informed, but one relative wanted more information.
“However, 1 relative told us, "A bit more information would be good.” from the report
- 01How many one-to-one staffing hours would my relative receive, and how would you support their preferred activities and outings?
- 02How are people in Falcons Rest now involved in choosing meals and suggesting changes to the menu?
- 03Have all wardrobes been secured to walls, and how are window restrictors and other safety checks monitored?
- 04How will you keep families informed about changes in their relative's care and about incidents or concerns?
- 05What changes were made after the previous Requires Improvement rating for Well-led?
This inspection assessed all five key questions and infection prevention and control, using observations, discussions and selected records rather than every person's records. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 September 2023 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 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home needs to improve communication with relatives and professionals.
The inspection took place on 25 and 29 April 2019. One inspector visited both houses, observed care, spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals, and checked care, medicines, staffing and quality records.
The home supported 14 people with learning disabilities, who may also have physical disabilities or sensory impairments. Inspectors found good care in four areas. People were safe, supported to make choices, treated with kindness and helped to take part in activities and access healthcare.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors were not assured that the provider and managers communicated and engaged effectively with relatives and community professionals. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous comprehensive inspection.
Safe care and medicines
Risks relating to people's needs were assessed and reviewed. Medicines records were clear and staff handling medicines had annual training and competency checks.
“The information recorded on people's medication administration records (MARs) was clear, accurate and up-to-date.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff listen, respond patiently and protect people's dignity and privacy.
“We staff met people's care needs in an attentive, patient and caring manner, took the time to listen to people and responded to their requests with professionalism.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences and support needs. People were helped to make choices and take part in social and recreational activities.
“People's care plans were individual to them, covered key aspects of their care and support needs, and were reviewed and updated to ensure they remained effective.” from the report
Good staff training
New staff completed an induction and ongoing training. Staff also had one-to-one meetings where they could raise concerns and training needs.
“Following induction, staff participated in a rolling training programme designed to give them the necessary knowledge and skills to meet people's individual needs.” from the report
Communication with families
needs fixingRelatives gave mixed feedback about management communication. Some said they were not always involved or were unsure whether they would be told about care review meetings.
“We were not assured the provider and management team communicated and engaged effectively with people's relatives and community professionals to build their trust and confidence in the service.” from the report
Communication with professionals
needs fixingSome community professionals reported poor communication and a lack of confidence in the provider's ability to maintain care standards.
“Communication is poor; I don't get a response to emails [to the management team].” from the report
Recruitment and retention
needs fixingStaff were concerned about vacancies, recruitment and retention, and pressure to work overtime. Inspectors found staffing safe during the visit, and the provider had a strategy to address the problem.
“However, they were concerned about the provider's staff recruitment and retention problems, the current number of staff vacancies and the pressure they felt to work overtime to cover shifts.” from the report
- 01How have you improved communication with relatives since the inspection?
- 02How will I be told about care reviews and involved in decisions about my relative's care?
- 03How many staff vacancies are there now, and how are you managing overtime and agency staff?
- 04How do you make sure emails and requests from health and social care professionals are answered promptly?
- 05Have activities or outings been affected by the recruitment of permanent staff who can drive company vehicles?
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating and looked at the care and premises across the service, covering all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 June 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 Falcons Rest and Poachers Cottage
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Falcons Rest and Poachers Cottage →
- June 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Falcons Rest and Poachers Cottage →
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2014.
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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.