CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Godfrey Robinson - Care Home Physical Disabilities
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Medicines, recruitment, safeguarding, infection control and accident monitoring were found to be managed safely. Some risk assessments had not been reviewed on time, but inspectors found no impact on people.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home was well maintained and care plans recorded people's health and support needs. Inspectors identified poor interaction and delays during one mealtime, and the manager said immediate action would be taken.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were generally treated with dignity and respect, and staff promoted independence and relationships. One person said staff did not understand their condition, and low staff morale had affected person-centred care at times.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people were involved in planning their care. Activities were available, but some people and relatives felt they were not regular or varied enough.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was registered with the CQC and quality checks were carried out regularly. Staff morale had been low and some staff felt issues between staff had not been dealt with promptly, although improvements were reported.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Godfrey Robinson - Care Home Physical Disabilities was rated Good; care was safe and kind, but activities had reduced and meal-time support needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and other people involved in the service. They also reviewed care records, recruitment and training files, medicines, audits and complaints information.
Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, staff were recruited and trained properly, and people were protected from abuse and infection. The home was clean and well maintained. People were supported with their health, nutrition, communication and independence.
People were generally treated with kindness, dignity and respect. However, inspectors found limited interaction at mealtimes, including one person waiting 45 minutes for their meal. They also found that some people did not have enough activities, especially when the activities coordinator was away.
The overall rating was Good, as were all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The Responsive rating fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection in October 2015 to Good, but the overall rating stayed Good.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were managed consistently and safely. Staff understood the electronic medicines systems and procedures.
“Medicines were managed safely and staff had a good knowledge of the medicine systems and procedures in place to support this.” from the report
Well-maintained home
The home had been refurbished, including communal areas, bathrooms and bedrooms. Inspectors found it pleasant and suitable for people's needs.
“The premises were well-maintained and pleasant throughout and people's bedrooms were personalised.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Most people and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and respect.
“People felt that staff treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, communication methods, cultural and religious needs, and end of life wishes. People and relatives were involved in reviewing them.
“People and their relatives were involved in the development of their care plans.” from the report
Meal-time delays
needs fixingOne person waited 45 minutes for their meal. Inspectors also saw limited communication during meals and found that dessert was not always offered.
“We observed one person sat at the dining table waiting for their meal for 45 minutes.” from the report
Not enough activities
needs fixingSome people and relatives wanted more regular activities. On the inspection day, most people were watching television and there was little to do.
“We observed that people had very little to do.” from the report
Staff morale
needs fixingStaff morale had been low and this had sometimes affected person-centred care. Some staff also felt issues between staff had not been dealt with promptly.
“Staff moral and atmosphere has been at an all-time low” from the report
Risk assessment reviews
minorSome risk assessments had not been reviewed in line with the home's policy. The manager had already identified this and inspectors found no impact on people.
“We identified some risk assessments that had not been reviewed in line with the provider's policy.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure people are not left waiting for meals?
- 02How are staff expected to communicate with and support people during mealtimes?
- 03What activities are available when the activities coordinator is not working?
- 04How are you monitoring staff morale and dealing with disagreements between staff?
- 05How often are risk assessments reviewed, and how do you check that reviews are completed on time?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home and care provided across all five CQC areas, with the overall rating unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 2018 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 Godfrey Robinson - Care Home Physical Disabilities
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Godfrey Robinson - Care Home Physical Disabilities →
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of 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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.