CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Geraint House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Requires Improvement and no longer in Special Measures; inspectors found progress but continuing safety, building and management problems.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 5 January 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people, a relative and staff. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Inadequate and placed in Special Measures. People were supported with medicines, safeguarding, staffing, training and consent. People said they felt safe and staff were kind and approachable.
Important problems remained. Fire safety was not always effective, some areas were unhygienic and repairs were poor. People with diabetes were not always encouraged to follow a healthy diet. Management checks did not reliably find or fix these issues.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Requires Improvement. The home is no longer in Special Measures, but the provider must send an action plan and CQC will continue to monitor progress.
Safeguarding improved
Safeguarding concerns were recorded and reported, with follow-up action. Staff had safeguarding training and people felt comfortable raising concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe at the service and felt comfortable raising concerns with staff.” from the report
Medicines support
People were supported to take prescribed medicines safely. Medicines were stored safely and stock was controlled.
“People were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough staff to meet people's care needs. Recruitment checks, induction and relevant staff training were in place.
“People were supported by enough staff to meet their care needs at the service, and they were supported to access their community as required.” from the report
Consent and care planning
The service had improved its work under the Mental Capacity Act. Assessments and care plans were in place where people lacked capacity, and DoLS processes were overseen.
“At this inspection, we found enough improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 11.” from the report
Friendly atmosphere
Inspectors observed a relaxed atmosphere. People said staff treated them well and they could contribute through resident meetings.
“The atmosphere at the service felt relaxed and friendly during our inspection.” from the report
Fire and infection risks
seriousA fire door was held open with a chair. Cleaning and laundry areas had problems that could increase the spread of infection.
“People were not always kept safe from the risks associated with fire.” from the report
Poor repairs and condition
seriousThe building was worn and needed renovation. Examples included damaged flooring, mould, crumbling plaster and damaged kitchen surfaces.
“Maintenance repairs were not completed to a good standard and the service required renovation and modernisation.” from the report
Diabetic diet support
needs fixingThere were not always suitable healthy options for people with diabetes, and staff lacked knowledge about healthy diabetic nutrition.
“The provider did not always ensure people were encouraged to maintain a healthy diet.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits and care plan reviews did not reliably find missing information, poor repairs or other problems. The provider remained in breach of the governance regulation.
“Quality assurance processes were not always effective and there was a lack of provider oversight.” from the report
Emergency information
needs fixingPersonal emergency evacuation plans did not include photographs of residents. This could make it harder for unfamiliar staff to identify people during an evacuation.
“Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place; however, they did not contain pictures of people living at the service.” from the report
- 01What has been done to stop fire doors being propped open and to improve personal emergency evacuation plans?
- 02Which repairs and renovation works have been completed since the inspection, including the kitchen, bathrooms, laundry room and flooring?
- 03How do you now check that cleaning equipment, waste and food are stored safely and that mould and damaged surfaces are dealt with?
- 04What healthy food choices and staff guidance are now available for people with diabetes?
- 05How do your current audits prove that care plan problems, medicine competency records and maintenance issues are found and fixed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 August 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, September 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks involving medicines, safeguarding, infection control, staffing and management.
Inspectors visited on four dates. The first visit was unannounced and the later visits were announced. They spoke with four people, one relative, the manager and six staff. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
They found serious problems with safety. Medicines were not always given or recorded correctly. Safeguarding concerns were not consistently reported or investigated. Fire evacuation plans and health risk assessments were not adequate. The home was dirty and worn, and infection control was poor.
Staff did not always have the training or knowledge needed to support people's mental health and physical health needs. Care plans and consent records were not reliable. The provider's checks and management systems did not identify or fix problems.
The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. The home was placed in special measures. CQC said it would request an action plan, monitor progress and usually re-inspect within six months.
Access to healthcare
People were supported to book and attend medical appointments. The provider also worked with external health professionals, although inspectors found that information was not always used properly.
“People living at the service were supported to book and attend medical appointments.” from the report
Visitors
The home facilitated visits in line with government guidance, and a relative said they could visit if they chose to.
“The provider facilitated visitors to the home in accordance with government guidance.” from the report
Staff deployment
Inspectors observed that there were suitable staff arrangements during the inspection.
“The provider told us they had a full staff team, and during our inspection we observed suitable staff deployment.” from the report
Varied diet
People had access to a varied diet, although the report also found that specific dietary and healthier options were not always provided.
“People were supported to have access to a varied diet.” from the report
Medicine safety
seriousAs-required medicines for anxiety were sometimes given without the required indication or without trying behavioural support first. Records did not always show why medicines were given.
“People were at risk of being over medicated.” from the report
Safeguarding
seriousSome allegations and incidents were not reported to the local safeguarding team, and follow-up actions did not always protect people from further risk.
“The provider failed to ensure people were protected from abuse and improper treatment.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
seriousStaff did not consistently wear required masks, visitor test results were not always checked and cleaning remained ineffective. Inspectors found mould and visibly dirty areas.
“The home was not sufficiently maintained to ensure risks of infection were minimised.” from the report
Staff training
seriousStaff lacked training in diabetes care and mental health support. New staff had started work without completing all required training, reading policies or reading care plans.
“The provider failed to ensure staff were trained and competent to fulfil their roles.” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousConsent was not consistently recorded, and mental capacity and best-interest decisions were not reliably documented. DoLS conditions were not always reflected in care records.
“The need for consent was not always considered and recorded in accordance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, when people were receiving care and support.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousThe provider did not have effective systems to monitor care plans, incidents, staff training or risks. This meant problems were not consistently identified or addressed.
“There was a significant lack of governance oversight and quality assurance processes, resulting in poor quality care.” from the report
- 01How are as-required anxiety medicines now authorised, used and recorded for each person?
- 02How are safeguarding concerns reported, investigated and followed up with the local authority?
- 03What evidence shows that staff are trained and competent in diabetes care, mental health support and de-escalation?
- 04What repairs and cleaning checks have been completed, including handrails, bathrooms and high-touch surfaces?
- 05How are people's consent, mental capacity decisions and DoLS conditions now recorded in their care plans?
This focused inspection covered Safe, Effective and Well-led after an initial targeted review of infection control and COVID-19 vaccination arrangements; Caring and Responsive were not included in the ratings shown. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 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.
Every inspection of Geraint House Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Geraint House Residential Care Home →
- September 2022Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Geraint House Residential Care Home →
- February 2020Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 January 2019.
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 Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.