CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at George Edward Smart Homes
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risk assessments and support plans were not always complete or current. Medicines records and instructions for medicines taken as needed were also not always sufficient.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried over.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried over.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried over.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers did not have effective enough oversight of records, risks and medicines checks. People and relatives were nevertheless positive about staff and management.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and a clean home, but risk records, medicines records and oversight were not reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 and 14 March 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, staff files, medicines processes, incident records and quality checks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that risk assessments, care records and some medicines records were not always complete or up to date.
There were also positive findings. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Staff were trained, knew people well and were described positively. The home was clean and well maintained, and infection control arrangements were judged effective.
The inspection found a low impact on people at the time, but said people could be harmed if improvements were not made quickly. The provider must send an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress.
Clean and maintained home
The home was clean and well maintained, with large outdoor areas. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures and protective equipment were being used effectively.
“The home was well maintained, clean with access to large outside garden and seating areas.” from the report
Familiar, trained staff
People and relatives said they were supported by regular staff they knew. Staff had appropriate training and understood people's needs.
“People and their relatives told us they received their care and support from regular staff who they knew.” from the report
Safeguarding and fire safety
Inspectors found staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Fire risks were managed, with drills and evacuations recorded.
“Risks relating to fire were well managed. Fire drills and evacuations were completed and recorded to ensure safe evacuation of the premises if required.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousRisk assessments and support plans were not always completed or reviewed. This meant staff might not have the current information needed to prevent avoidable harm.
“Risk assessments and associated support plans used by staff as a point of reference were not always up to date or completed which put people at risk of otherwise avoidable harm.” from the report
Medicines records and controls
seriousSome medicines risk assessments were out of date, and instructions for medicines taken as needed were not always available. Overall responsibility for medicines management was spread across several staff.
“Protocols were not always available to ensure staff safely administered and recorded medicines prescribed to be taken 'as required'.” from the report
Weak management oversight
needs fixingThere was no clear plan to make urgent improvements to records and risk management. Quality checks had not identified or corrected all the problems.
“There was no management oversight or plan to ensure the recording of new information and the transfer of written files resulted in up-to-date records for people.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every person's risk assessment and support plan is complete and reviewed when their needs change?
- 02How are you checking that information transferred from paper records to the electronic system is accurate and up to date?
- 03Who now has overall responsibility for medicines management, and how are medicines taken as needed recorded and checked?
- 04What action plan was sent to CQC after the two breaches, and what progress has been made?
- 05How do you use falls and other incident information to update care plans and reduce the risk of similar incidents?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key-question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 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, April 2021
George Edward Smart Homes was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
Inspectors visited on 23 March 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection looking at infection prevention and control in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
They found appropriate checks for visitors, including PPE, testing, temperature checks and hand hygiene. Staff had infection control training, and the home had enough PPE stored safely.
The home was clean, with extra cleaning of shared areas and frequently touched surfaces. People could keep in touch with relatives through a screened visiting room or video calls.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to use PPE, show a negative COVID-19 test, have their temperature checked and clean their hands before entering.
“All essential visitors had to wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Also, have a negative COVID-19 test result” from the report
Staff infection control training
Staff completed training on PPE, hand hygiene and other infection prevention measures. The home also had appropriate PPE supplies and safe areas for using it.
“Staff completed online training and paper-based learning booklets provided by the local NHS infection prevention and control (IPC) team.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home very clean. Extra cleaning of shared areas and frequently touched surfaces was carried out and recorded.
“The home was very clean and additional cleaning of all areas and frequent touch surfaces was in place such as handrails.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People could use an indoor visiting room with a screened area. Video calls were available when relatives could not visit.
“People were supported to keep in touch with their relatives.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now for essential visitors?
- 02How are PPE supplies stored and monitored, and where do staff put on and dispose of PPE?
- 03How often are shared areas and frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and can families see the cleaning records?
- 04What visiting options are available now, including screened visits and video calls?
- 05How does the home prevent and manage infection outbreaks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess the other four questions or provide a full overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 April 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 George Edward Smart Homes
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.