Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at George Edward Smart Homes

Requires improvementpublished 12 April 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
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.
The latest report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Incomplete risk information

    serious

    Risk 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

    serious

    Some 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 fixing

    There 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What has been done to make sure every person's risk assessment and support plan is complete and reviewed when their needs change?
  2. 02How are you checking that information transferred from paper records to the electronic system is accurate and up to date?
  3. 03Who now has overall responsibility for medicines management, and how are medicines taken as needed recorded and checked?
  4. 04What action plan was sent to CQC after the two breaches, and what progress has been made?
  5. 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.

An earlier report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now for essential visitors?
  2. 02How are PPE supplies stored and monitored, and where do staff put on and dispose of PPE?
  3. 03How often are shared areas and frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and can families see the cleaning records?
  4. 04What visiting options are available now, including screened visits and video calls?
  5. 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of George Edward Smart Homes

4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. April 2023Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at George Edward Smart Homes →

  2. April 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at George Edward Smart Homes →

  3. January 2019Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. December 2017Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. September 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. August 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.”
Claire A., about Carla M.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
Beatrice N., about Rosemary H.
See live-in carers near North YorkshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.