CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Forge House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, recruitment, staffing and risk plans were found to be safe, although a faulty fire door stopper and expired extinguishers were only identified during the inspection and were fixed immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support for their health, diet, communication and independence. Staff were trained and supported, and the home worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, respectful and responsive. People were involved in decisions, supported to express themselves and encouraged to maintain their privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People were supported with relationships, community activities, personal goals and information in easy-read or pictorial formats, but end of life planning had not been discussed.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a positive and approachable culture, but its management checks were not fully embedded. Audits had not been carried out consistently, some records were not current and planned monthly key worker meetings had not always taken place.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but leadership and record checks required improvement.
Inspectors visited on 15 and 17 October 2019. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, staff, managers and relatives, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home supported six adults with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with respect and supported to make choices, stay healthy, eat well and take part in activities. Medicines were managed safely and no restrictive interventions were used.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because quality checks were not being used consistently, some records were out of date and planned key worker meetings had not always happened.
The overall rating remained Good, but it was not an entirely clean report. The previous overall rating was also Good, while the Well-led rating had fallen from Good to Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines records complete and accurate. Staff knew the medicines system and administered medicines safely.
“MAR charts were complete and accurate.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, develop skills and take part in everyday tasks. Their support followed least restrictive principles.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff used people's preferred ways of communicating and respected their dignity, privacy and personal choices.
“We observed staff were caring with people and responsive to their needs” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to pursue personal goals, attend college, swim, bowl and take part in other community activities.
“There were planned activities, and these were advertised on the notice board.” from the report
Positive behaviour support
Staff used positive behaviour support and dealt with difficult situations without restraint. Inspectors observed staff preventing situations from escalating.
“The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingThe home did not consistently use audits to check care plans, fire safety, health and safety or staff records. This meant some problems were not identified promptly.
“Effective governance systems to monitor performance had not been fully embedded into the service.” from the report
Incomplete management records
needs fixingMonthly key worker meetings had not happened as planned, and some daily records did not show that oral care had been provided twice a day.
“Key worker meetings had not taken place monthly as stated by the provider.” from the report
End of life planning
needs fixingStaff had not discussed end of life wishes with people or relatives, and no end of life care plans were in place. The home said it planned to address this.
“Staff had not spoken with people and their relatives about end of life plans.” from the report
Fire safety checks
needs fixingA fire door stopper was not working and two fire extinguishers had expired. These issues were fixed by the second day of the inspection.
“A fire door stopper was not working, and two extinguishers had expired.” from the report
- 01What audits are now being completed, and how do you check that care plans, fire safety and staff records are up to date?
- 02How often are key worker meetings held now, and can families see how actions from those meetings are followed up?
- 03How will you discuss and record my relative's end of life wishes and preferences?
- 04How do you make sure daily records accurately show all agreed care, including oral care?
- 05What community activities and personal goals would be available for my relative?
This was a planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, with an unannounced first day and an announced second day to gather further information. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 December 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, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with evacuation information still being updated.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 7 February 2017. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care records, staff files, rotas, audits and policies.
The home supported six adults with complex mental and physical health needs. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable care plans and staff who understood people's needs. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were supported to make choices and take part in activities.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous inspection on 17 February 2015.
Kind staff
Staff were attentive, friendly and understood how people communicated, including through gestures and body language.
“Staff were attentive and interacted with people that used the service in a warm and friendly manner.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely. Records showed that people received them as prescribed.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received them as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised care
Each person had a current support plan covering their needs, preferences and how staff should provide care.
“Each person had an up to date, personalised support plan, which set out how their care and support needs should be met by staff.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities, outings and personal interests, as well as daily tasks that promoted independence.
“People were supported to go on holidays, day trips and outings to the seaside.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
Staff respected people's privacy during personal care and knocked before entering bedrooms.
“People's right to privacy and to be treated with dignity was respected.” from the report
Evacuation information being updated
minorThe report says information about the support people would need during an evacuation was still being updated at the time of the inspection.
“Evacuation information was currently being updated. This included details of the support they would need if they had to be evacuated.” from the report
- 01Has the evacuation information now been fully updated, including the support my relative would need in an emergency?
- 02How would staffing be adjusted if my relative's needs changed or staff called in sick?
- 03How would staff communicate with my relative if they could not explain their wishes verbally?
- 04How often would my relative's support plan and risk assessments be reviewed?
- 05How would you support my relative to continue their preferred activities, outings and family visits?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas of the service, and the previous Good ratings remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 2017 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 Forge House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 2011.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.