CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Helmsley Road Short Breaks Service
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Helmsley Road Short Breaks Service was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised short-break care, with effectiveness improved since 2015.
Inspectors made unannounced visits on 18 and 26 January 2018. The first visit was extended because only two people were staying, so inspectors returned when eight people were using the service. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines, training, staffing and quality checks.
The home supported people with learning and physical disabilities for planned short breaks. Inspectors found that people were safe, their medicines were managed properly and there were enough staff. Care was adapted to people's communication needs, preferences and health needs.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in November 2015 because mental capacity assessments and best-interest records were now in place.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given safely and on time. Records included how people preferred to take medicines and whether they had taken or refused them.
“People's records were fully completed. They recorded how they liked to take their medicines, whether they had taken or refused them and whether they had any allergies.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, training and supervision. Inspectors found that staff understood the people they supported and had the skills needed for their care.
“Staff were well trained, received an induction and were supported to develop their skills by gaining external qualifications in adult social care.” from the report
Kind relationships
People and staff had positive relationships, even though stays were short. Inspectors saw respectful communication and compassionate support when people became upset.
“Although people stayed at the home for only a few days at a time, it was clear people and staff knew each other well and got on with each other.” from the report
Personalised support
People's needs were assessed before each stay and care plans gave staff detailed guidance. People were supported to take part in activities and everyday tasks they enjoyed.
“People received care and support that met their individual needs. Detailed assessments were carried out before people first came to the home to ensure that their needs could be met.” from the report
Improvement systems
Managers used audits, feedback, meetings and an action plan to review the service. Staff, people and relatives were encouraged to contribute to improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were in place that helped to drive continued improvements at the home.” from the report
Staff records were held elsewhere
minorInspectors could not check staff recruitment records at the home because the provider held them elsewhere. They did see that criminal records checks had been requested, and managers said references and identification were checked.
“However, we were unable to review the records of staff due to their records being held by the provider away from the home.” from the report
- 01How will you assess my relative's needs again before each stay, and how will you record any changes?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's medicines arrive, are stored and are given in the way they prefer?
- 03What staffing level and one-to-one support will be available if my relative needs continuous supervision?
- 04How will you support my relative to communicate choices, consent to care and take part in best-interest decisions?
- 05Which activities, community visits and personal routines could you provide during my relative's stay?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five questions; the first visit was incomplete because only two people were staying, so inspectors returned on 26 January 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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 Helmsley Road Short Breaks Service
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Helmsley Road Short Breaks Service →
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 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.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 February 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.