CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fridhem Rest Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, PPE, testing, cleaning, safe admissions, outbreak management and visiting arrangements. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Fridhem Rest Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
The home had arrangements for named visitors and essential caregivers. Visitors had checks, testing and guidance. Staff and visiting professionals had to show vaccination status unless an exemption or emergency applied.
Inspectors found the home visibly clean. They saw staff using protective equipment correctly and were assured that testing, safe admissions, infection outbreak plans and the infection control policy were in place.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not provide a new overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Visiting arrangements
People could name three visitors, with an essential caregiver role available as well. Visitors had to complete testing and health checks before entering.
“People could nominate three named visitors, and the essential care giver role was available in addition to this.” from the report
Correct use of PPE
Protective equipment was available and staff were seen using it correctly. Visitors had also received guidance on using and removing it safely.
“Staff were observed to wear PPE correctly, and wore uniforms whilst at work.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Frequently touched surfaces received extra cleaning.
“The care home was visibly clean and hygienic.” from the report
COVID-19 vaccination checks
The home was meeting the requirement to check vaccination status for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What visiting arrangements and testing rules are in place now for named visitors and essential caregivers?
- 02How do you manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and how do you check that people’s care is not affected?
- 03How do you make sure staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 04How often are frequently touched areas cleaned, and what happens if there is an infection outbreak?
- 05What was the home’s most recent full inspection rating for caring, responsiveness and management, since these areas were not assessed in this inspection?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2022 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, November 2021
Fridhem Rest Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good staffing but serious gaps in risk management, medicines, fire safety and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 22 October 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, checked medicines, care records, recruitment checks, audits, complaints and fire safety records.
The home was caring and friendly, and staffing levels were good. People said they felt safe and well looked after. However, risk assessments and care plans were incomplete, including for COVID-19. Fire safety actions had not been completed, some medicine systems were not safe enough, and recruitment checks were incomplete.
Management systems were not strong enough to identify and correct these problems. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Safe and Well-led both rated Requires Improvement. The previous overall rating was Good in 2017.
Caring staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors found staff were caring, thoughtful, friendly and worked well as a team.
“There was a positive person-centred culture at the home.” from the report
Adequate staffing
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs in a person-centred way.
“There were good staffing levels available to meet people's needs in a person-centred way.” from the report
Clean and welcoming environment
The home was clean and well ventilated. Visitors were supported safely when entering the home.
“The home was clean and well ventilated. Visitors were supported safely into the home.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousPeople did not always have complete assessments and plans covering the risks they faced. COVID-19 risks, including staff eating with people and not wearing face masks, had not been properly assessed.
“People did not have risk assessments which identified and explored the risks they faced in order to try and manage these risks in a safe way.” from the report
Fire safety actions
seriousRecommendations from a fire risk assessment in March 2019 had not been acted on. Inspectors also found that a thorough building risk assessment had not been reviewed for some years.
“Recommendations from the last fire risk assessment on 6 March 2019 were not acted upon.” from the report
Medicines systems
seriousCreams were not marked with their opening dates, there was no system to check medicine temperatures, and staff lacked written guidance for some as-required medicines.
“People's prescribed creams did not have a record of when they were opened, to help ensure they were being used according to the manufacture's guidelines.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousSome staff did not have full employment histories or references. The manager had tried to obtain these but had not taken enough action to manage the risk.
“Recruitment checks to promote people's safety around new staff were not complete.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits and monitoring did not reliably identify problems or show that they had been dealt with. Incidents were not routinely recorded or reviewed for lessons.
“There was a lack of quality monitoring from the registered manager and provider to assess the service, to identify shortfalls and take action to resolve these.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to complete and regularly review risk assessments for falls, choking, skin breakdown and other risks affecting residents?
- 02What has been done to complete the outstanding fire safety recommendations and update the building's fire risk assessment?
- 03How are medicines now checked, including opening dates for creams, storage temperatures and guidance for as-required medicines?
- 04Have all staff recruitment checks, employment histories and references now been completed?
- 05How are incidents, accidents, medicines and infection control now audited, and how will families be shown that problems are being corrected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other key question ratings were carried over from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 2021 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 Fridhem Rest Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.