CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at H M T Care - 48 Albany Drive
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2018
H M T Care - 48 Albany Drive was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with staffing improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 February 2018. One inspector looked around all areas, met all seven people living there, and spoke with relatives, staff, the manager and the provider. Records, care plans, medicines, safety checks and quality records were also reviewed.
Inspectors found that people were safe and supported by enough trained staff. Medicines were given safely and on time. Staff supported people's health, eating, communication, choices, privacy and activities. People and relatives described staff as kind and caring.
The home was clean and well maintained, with regular checks on care and safety. A fire safety audit had found some shortfalls, with an action plan in place. All five areas were rated Good. This was an improvement from Requires Improvement in February 2017, when there had not always been enough staff.
Enough staff
Inspectors found that staffing had improved since the previous inspection. People and relatives said there were consistently enough staff, and staff were not rushed during the visit.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of knowledgeable staff to keep them safe.” from the report
Specialist support
Staff had training for Huntington's disease and other specialist needs, including swallowing difficulties. They worked with health professionals and followed their advice.
“Additional training was provided to help staff perform their roles effectively and included, Huntington's Disease, catheter training, choking and dysphagia” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw positive and caring interactions. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and communication needs, and supported privacy and dignity.
“During the inspection staff interactions were positive, inclusive, kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to stay active, go out, follow their interests and work towards personal goals. A dedicated activities person had been employed since the previous inspection.
“People were supported to remain as active as possible for as long as they could.” from the report
Open management
The inspection found approachable leadership, regular staff meetings and feedback from people, relatives and staff. Audits were used to monitor the service and act on shortfalls.
“There was an open, transparent and inclusive culture at the service and the registered manager had an 'open door' policy.” from the report
Fire safety shortfalls
needs fixingA fire safety audit had identified a number of shortfalls. An action plan was in place, but the report does not say what each shortfall was or confirm that all the work had been completed.
“A fire safety audit had been completed by the local fire and rescue service and a plan of action was in place to address a number of shortfalls found.” from the report
- 01What were the fire safety shortfalls identified by the local fire and rescue service, and has every action now been completed?
- 02How many staff are normally on duty during the day and at night, and how are sickness and other staff shortages covered?
- 03What specialist Huntington's disease training do staff currently have, and how is their practical competence checked?
- 04How are changes in communication, swallowing, mobility or health recorded and passed on to all staff?
- 05How are activities and trips tailored to my relative's interests, abilities and changing health needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided; the inspector reviewed two care plans and a range of staff, medicines, safety and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but staffing and communication needed improvement.
The unannounced inspection took place on 7 February 2017. Two inspectors met five of the six people living at the home, spoke with staff and managers, and received feedback from relatives and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas, audits and other records.
The home provided specialist care for six people with Huntington's disease and complex communication and mobility needs. Inspectors found kind care, safe medicines, suitable food and drink, good health support and regular staff training. Care plans had improved since the last inspection.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Responsive were also Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Well-led were rated Good. There were not enough staff to meet people's needs on the inspection day, and activities and accessible ways to communicate choices were limited.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw calm, empathetic interactions. Staff knew people's histories, wishes and communication methods, and relatives described them as caring and kind.
“When staff spoke to people they knelt down to their level and leaned in, to ensure people were able to see and hear them.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine storage had been improved. Records showed medicines were received, given and signed for, with guidance for medicines given when needed.
“The records were up to date and had no gaps showing all medicine had been administered and signed for.” from the report
Good health support
Staff monitored people's health and sought professional advice. Food and drinks were prepared at the correct consistency for people with swallowing difficulties.
“Staff sought and followed advice from health professionals as needed.” from the report
Improved care planning
Care plans had been reviewed and updated more regularly since the previous inspection. They included people's preferences and step-by-step guidance for some care and equipment.
“People's care plans had guidance for staff about what people could do for themselves and what support they needed.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff said managers were approachable and supportive. The home used questionnaires to gather views and acted on some feedback.
“There was an open and inclusive culture at the service, the registered manager, assistant manager and provider all chatted with staff in a relaxed fashion.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousOn the inspection day, two care staff were supporting six people because one staff member was off sick. Inspectors saw people waiting for support, and there was no formal process for deciding staffing levels.
“There were not enough staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Unsafe storage of thickening powder
seriousThickening powder was left where people or visitors could reach it without supervision. Inspectors said this created a choking risk, and staff moved it during the inspection.
“There was a risk the powder could be swallowed and that people could choke as a result.” from the report
Limited activities
minorInspectors found no activities taking place on the inspection day. Records showed some activities happened at other times, but the home had not fully considered activities for people with more complex needs.
“There was a lack of engagement as there were no activities happening that day.” from the report
Training competency checks
needs fixingStaff had completed relevant training, but the home had not checked or recorded whether staff were competent in some tasks, including moving and handling and supporting someone with food and fluids through a tube.
“There was no process in place to monitor the quality of care people received or the competency of staff in their roles.” from the report
- 01How do you now calculate the number of staff needed on each shift, and what happens when someone is off sick?
- 02What activities are currently available for people with complex communication and mobility needs?
- 03How do you help each person understand the menu, activities and who is on duty?
- 04What communication tools are available for people to show their choices and preferences?
- 05How do you check and record staff competency after training, including moving and handling and tube feeding support?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the previous inspection was in January 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 2017 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 H M T Care - 48 Albany Drive
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at H M T Care - 48 Albany Drive →
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at H M T Care - 48 Albany Drive →
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.