CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Georgina House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found unsafe restrictions, poor communication support and weak oversight, with conditions imposed on the provider's registration.
Inspectors visited without notice on two dates, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a professional, observed care, and reviewed care records, staff records and other documents. They also checked infection prevention and control.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. People were generally safe in a clean environment and received medicines safely, but staffing, fire evacuation arrangements, staff skills and some risk management were not strong enough.
Inspectors found that people were not always treated with dignity or supported to communicate, make choices, build skills or follow their interests. Some restrictions had not been properly reviewed, and the building did not fully meet people's sensory needs.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement, the same as at the previous inspection. Caring fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The new registered manager had improvement plans, but these were at an early stage and the provider was required to submit an action plan.
Medicines
People received their medicines safely and on time. Staff explained medicines, allowed time for consent and had guidance about people's preferences and risks.
“People received their medicines safely and on time.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection risks, protective equipment and possible outbreaks were being managed.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Relatives' access
The home had open visiting, and relatives said they could visit without arranging it in advance.
“Relatives told us they were free to visit anytime without prior notice and staff supported people to use telephone communication at other times.” from the report
Restrictive practices
seriousPersonal items were locked away without a clear reason. The kitchen stair gate had not been reviewed for a less restrictive option, and inspectors recommended reviewing all restrictions.
“Some people had personal items locked away without any reasonable rationale for this.” from the report
Dignity and kindness
seriousInspectors saw a person ignored for hours while trying to engage with staff. Another person was left wearing odd shoes despite this being pointed out.
“One person was ignored for a number of hours despite them continuously trying to engage with staff.” from the report
Activities and independence
needs fixingStaffing was enough for basic needs but not enough for people to pursue individual interests, go out when they wished or develop everyday skills.
“The staffing levels were not sufficient to enable people to pursue individual interests and explore new social opportunities.” from the report
Environment
seriousThe communal areas were small, noisy and cramped for people's sensory needs. The provider failed to ensure the premises were suitably designed for the people living there.
“The building design was not suitable for adults with sensory needs should they all choose to spend time in the communal spaces as the lounge and dining area was very small, noisy and cramped.” from the report
Provider oversight
seriousAudits had not identified important problems, records were sometimes inaccurate and there was no organisational action plan to address the concerns. This was the third consecutive inspection without a Good rating.
“This was the third consecutive inspection where the provider had failed to achieve a rating of good.” from the report
- 01How many staff have now been trained and assessed as competent in Makaton and in the communication methods used by my relative?
- 02What has been changed to help people take part in cooking, cleaning, laundry, outings and other individual interests?
- 03How have the locked belongings and kitchen stair gate been reviewed, and what less restrictive options are now being used?
- 04What changes have been made to the small communal areas and the route to the outside laundry facilities to meet people's sensory and safety needs?
- 05What action plan is in place to meet the registration conditions, and how will progress be reported to families?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, with visits on 21 December 2022 and 8 January 2023 and further evidence reviewed until 1 February 2023. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 September 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, February 2021
Georgina House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and COVID-19 safety measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 February 2021. It looked at how the home was prepared to prevent and control infection during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found the home was clean and well ventilated. Key areas were cleaned several times a day, and the communal bathroom was cleaned after each use. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly and maintained social distancing.
Staff received regular COVID-19 tests, and new staff received training about personal protective equipment. The manager monitored infection control measures, and the home had not had any COVID-19 cases during the pandemic at the time of the inspection.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall rating or assess the wider quality of care.
Clean environment
The home was clean and well ventilated. Key areas were cleaned several times a day, including the communal bathroom after each use.
“The home was clean and well ventilated. Key areas were cleaned several times a day.” from the report
Correct PPE use
Staff were seen using personal protective equipment correctly. New staff received training promptly.
“We observed staff wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly.” from the report
Regular testing
Staff received regular COVID-19 tests in line with government guidance.
“Staff received regular COVID-19 tests in line with the current government guidance.” from the report
Infection control monitoring
The manager monitored important infection control measures to promote people's safety.
“The registered manager was monitoring key aspects of infection protection control (IPC) to promote people's safety.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are cleaning arrangements, including cleaning the communal bathroom after each use, checked and recorded now?
- 02How often are staff tested for COVID-19, and how are the results monitored?
- 03What infection control training do new staff receive before or soon after starting?
- 04How do you currently manage visits, social distancing and the use of personal protective equipment?
- 05What is the current plan for preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and when was the infection control policy last updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the home was inspected but not rated and the wider quality of care was not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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 Georgina House
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 February 2012.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Luton
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. 81 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.