CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Georgian House
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Georgian House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but serious gaps in safeguarding, medicines, staffing, consent and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection over five days. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, the management team and partner agencies. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
Most people said they felt safe, were happy and were cared for by kind staff. The home had suitable recruitment checks, access to health professionals and some good systems for managing medicines and health risks.
However, people were not always protected from avoidable harm. Safeguarding concerns were not always reported, some medicines records were incomplete, funded one-to-one support was not always provided, and some staff training and inductions were incomplete. Mental Capacity Act decisions and quality checks were also not reliable.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in September 2019, to Requires Improvement. The inspection only assessed Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their earlier ratings were carried forward.
Kind staff
Most people said they were happy and treated kindly. Staff knew people well and understood how to communicate with them.
“People mostly told us they were happy living at the service and staff treated them in a kind and friendly way” from the report
Safe recruitment
The recruitment records checked by inspectors showed that the home used thorough recruitment procedures.
“People continued to be protected by safe recruitment processes.” from the report
Health support
People could access several health professionals, and advice from them was generally added to care plans.
“People were supported to access a range of health care professionals to enable them to live healthier lives.” from the report
Some medicines safeguards
The home had medicine storage, ordering and disposal arrangements. Staff had medicine training and competency checks, and audits were taking place.
“There were suitable arrangements for ordering, storage, recording and disposal of medicines, including those needing cold storage or extra security.” from the report
Family visits
Relatives said they were able to visit regularly. A visiting pod had been provided in the grounds.
“The provider had built a visiting 'Pod' in the grounds which people told us they were able to use to have regular visits with friends and family.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousAn allegation involving an agency worker was not reported correctly. Nine safeguarding incidents were recorded but had not been referred to the local authority as required.
“The failure to ensure people were safe from abuse and improper treatment was a breach of Regulation 13” from the report
Medicine records
seriousInspectors found three gaps in one person's medicine record, a care plan that did not match prescribing instructions and regular use of a medicine prescribed only when needed.
“People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Missing support hours
seriousRotas showed that people did not always receive the one-to-one or two-to-one support hours that had been commissioned for them.
“People did not receive their commissioned support hours.” from the report
Staff training
seriousThere were significant training gaps and some staff had not completed the expected induction. This could affect whether staff had the knowledge needed to meet people's needs.
“The failure to provide adequate support and training to staff in order to meet people's needs is a breach of Regulation 18” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousSome restrictions were used without legal authorisation. Capacity assessments and best-interest records did not always contain enough detail or consistent information.
“This lack of understanding had led to one person having restrictions placed upon them without legal authorisation.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousThe home's checks did not reliably identify problems with safeguarding, risk, medicines, staffing, induction or consent. Incidents were not analysed for patterns or learning.
“Systems were either not in place or undertaken robustly to identify and monitor the quality of the service and effectively drive improvements.” from the report
- 01How are you making sure every safeguarding incident is reported to the local authority and reviewed for learning?
- 02What checks now confirm that people receive all prescribed medicines and their records are complete?
- 03How do you record and evidence the one-to-one and two-to-one support hours each person is funded to receive?
- 04Which staff still have training or induction outstanding, and how do you make sure they are safe to work independently?
- 05How are Mental Capacity Act assessments, best-interest decisions and restrictions now checked for legal authorisation?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 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, September 2019
Georgian House rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 4 and 9 September 2019. The visit was unannounced and looked at care, records, staff, medicines, the building and how the home was managed. They spoke with people living there, staff and managers, and reviewed care records, medicine records and other documents.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and liked living in the home. Inspectors found that staff were kind, people were involved in their care, medicines were managed safely and care plans gave staff clear guidance.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in May 2018, when it was rated Requires Improvement and breached one regulation. At this inspection, the report says the improvements meant the home was no longer in breach. The separate home care service was not supporting anyone at the time.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and compassionate. Inspectors saw staff comfort someone who was distressed and found that people's privacy, dignity and choices were respected.
“Our observations showed staff were kind, caring, friendly and attentive.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans described people's needs, preferences, routines and strengths. They gave staff clear guidance and were updated when people's needs changed.
“People received care and support specific to their needs, preferences and routines.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staff were safely recruited and medicines were given by trained staff whose competence had been checked.
“Medicines continued to be managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Improved management
The management team had continued to improve the home since the last inspection. Audits and feedback were used to monitor and improve the service.
“Effective quality assurance systems were in place.” from the report
Activities and independence
People could take part in group and individual activities linked to their interests. Some people received one-to-one support to visit places they valued.
“Some people were provided with one-to-one staff support to enable them to participate in activities meaningful to them, such as visits to local places of interest.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and update my relative's care plan if their needs or preferences change?
- 02What activities and one-to-one support would be available for my relative's interests and routines?
- 03How will you support my relative to make decisions if they cannot give consent, and how will relatives be involved where appropriate?
- 04What training has the staff team completed, particularly for dementia, mental health needs, positive behavioural support and safe physical intervention?
- 05How is CCTV used in communal areas, and how will you explain this to my relative and discuss any concerns?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the home care service was not supporting anyone at the time, and no one was receiving end of life care. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 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 Georgian House
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.