CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at High View
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staff did not yet have the training and skills needed to keep people safe when they were upset or anxious. Inspectors also found heavy reliance on agency staff and incidents involving unsafe restraint.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's capacity and consent were assessed appropriately. People were supported with healthcare, activities, decision making and independence, although nutritional and fluid support was not always consistently recorded in care plans.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff involved people in decisions and supported them to develop skills and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and communication preferences. People took part in a wide range of activities, accessed the community and maintained relationships with family and friends.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Managers had recognised some problems and developed action plans, but quality checks had not ensured that staff had the necessary training and skills. Paper and digital records also made it difficult to oversee all the care provided.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but serious gaps in staff training, staffing stability and oversight created safety risks.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 and 12 July 2023. They spoke with all four people living there, staff, relatives and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines, records, staffing, recruitment and training.
The home was caring, effective and responsive. People were treated with kindness, involved in decisions, supported to be independent and helped to take part in varied activities and community life. Medicines, infection control and recruitment were managed safely.
Safety and leadership both Requires Improvement. Staff lacked training in positive behaviour management and safe restrictive practices. The home also relied heavily on agency staff, including at times staff who did not know people's needs well. The provider had identified some problems and was taking action, but inspectors found that these systems had not yet ensured consistently safe care.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that people were comfortable with staff and received compassionate support. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“People were comfortable around their support staff and enjoyed playing games, laughing and joking together.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were current and included detailed information about people's communication needs. People were involved in planning their support and daily activities.
“People's care plans were up to date and accurately reflected their current needs.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in varied and sometimes challenging activities, including community activities, shopping, walks, swimming and holidays.
“People had been supported to participate in new and challenging activities in the community.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines records were accurate and medicines were given as prescribed. Storage and regular audits were also described as safe.
“Medicines were managed safely. Medicines administration records had been accurately completed, and staff ensured people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Staff lacked essential behaviour support training
seriousStaff did not have the skills needed to keep people safe during distress. Inspectors found incidents involving restraint where staff lacked the necessary training, including one incident in the community that exposed a person to significant risk of harm.
“Staff had not received appropriate training and did not have the skills necessary to ensure people's safety when they were upset or anxious.” from the report
Heavy reliance on agency staff
seriousThe home employed less than half of the staff it said were needed and regularly used agency workers. This meant people were sometimes supported by staff who did not know their individual needs well, and one agency worker had worked excessive hours.
“The service was very short staffed as it currently employed less than 50% of staff required to meet people's needs.” from the report
Quality checks did not give full oversight
needs fixingThe home's systems had not identified or resolved all the training and staffing risks. Using both paper and digital records also made it harder for managers to see what care people had received.
“This made it difficult for managers to have oversight of all aspects of the care people had received.” from the report
- 01Which staff have now completed positive behaviour management and safe restrictive practice training?
- 02How will you ensure that agency staff understand each person's individual needs before working shifts?
- 03What is the current proportion of permanent staff, and what is the timetable for reducing agency staffing?
- 04What action has been taken after the incidents involving restraint, and how are similar incidents now prevented?
- 05Has the home moved fully to digital records, and how do managers now check that care records are complete?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous provider's Inadequate rating was from 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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.
Every inspection of High View
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2020GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 November 2022.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.