CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Homeside
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding systems, suitable risk assessments, enough suitably recruited staff and safe medicines management.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff were trained and supported, and people received suitable help with food, health care and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, understood people's needs and preferences, and supported privacy, dignity, communication and choice.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported to maintain relationships, take part in activities and develop independence.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had supportive management, regular audits and quality checks, and worked with relatives and health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements needed to the environment and end-of-life plans.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 30 January 2020. Two inspectors reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and quality checks. They spoke with staff and relatives, and observed people's care because people could not share their views directly.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, received suitable support, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
People had personalised care plans and were supported to make choices, build skills and take part in activities. Inspectors noted that the environment had an institutional feel and that end-of-life plans needed more detail, but no legal breaches were identified.
Safe staffing and medicines
The home had enough experienced staff and did not use agency staff. Medicines records were clear, and staff were assessed as competent before administering medicines.
“There were enough safely recruited, experienced, skilled and qualified staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy and communication. Relatives gave positive feedback about the care.
“People's relatives complimented the staff team for the care and support provided.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, communication methods and behaviour triggers. Staff supported people to make choices and become more independent.
“People received personalised care and support that took account of their preferences and personal circumstances.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities, family events and community trips. Staff used active support to help people develop skills.
“People were supported to engage in activities away from the service including music therapy, going for walks, using the hydrotherapy pool and going on holidays.” from the report
Quality oversight
The provider used audits and action plans to identify and follow up shortfalls. Staff and relatives described the management as supportive.
“The provider had a robust quality assurance process which meant that shortfalls in performance were swiftly identified and addressed in a timely manner.” from the report
Environment lacked homely touches
minorInspectors said parts of the environment felt institutional rather than homely. The manager agreed to review planned painting and refurbishment.
“We discussed that the service had an institutional feel and lacked homely touches.” from the report
End-of-life plans needed more detail
needs fixingPlans recorded some end-of-life choices, but did not give enough personal guidance about comfort, reassurance, emotional needs or spiritual needs. No end-of-life care was being provided during the inspection.
“We discussed with the registered manager that the end of life care plans would benefit from further development.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to address the inspectors' comment that the environment had an institutional feel?
- 02How have end-of-life care plans been developed since the inspection?
- 03How do you find out what people think when they cannot communicate their views directly?
- 04How will you support my relative to build independence and take part in activities that suit them?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and decisions made in their family member's best interests?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, using records, observations, staff discussions and telephone feedback from relatives; residents could not share their views directly. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 2020 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but medicines records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 11 July 2017. The inspector spoke with care staff, the manager and the provider, and later spoke with two relatives. They reviewed care records, staff files and management records, and observed care because people could not share their views directly.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, appropriate risk management, kind and respectful care, personalised support and a strong system for checking and improving quality.
The main shortfall was in medicines record keeping. Inspectors found medicines had been given safely and on time, but said the records needed improvement. The manager and provider said this would be put right immediately.
Safe staffing and risk support
Inspectors found enough skilled and experienced staff and saw that risks to people's safety and wellbeing were assessed and managed.
“There were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to provide people with support when they needed it.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed treating people respectfully and reassuring them when they became anxious. Privacy and dignity were also protected.
“People were treated with kindness by staff who respected their privacy and upheld their dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people's individual needs, and staff supported activities and progress that mattered to each person.
“People received personalised care that met their individual needs.” from the report
Strong management checks
The provider used regular audits and acted on shortfalls. Relatives and staff were invited to give their views.
“Where shortfalls were identified, records demonstrated that these were acted upon promptly.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingMedicines were given safely and at the correct time, but inspectors found that the records were not always good enough. The manager and provider said this would be corrected immediately.
“We checked a random sample of boxed medicines and found, whilst they had been safely administered to people at the correct time, improvements were required in relation to record keeping.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to medicines records after the inspection, and how are they checked now?
- 02Were all outstanding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications later authorised?
- 03How do staff make sure people who cannot communicate verbally have their views understood?
- 04How are risks from noise and anxiety managed for each person?
- 05How are relatives' feedback and complaints recorded and acted on?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; people living at the home could not share their views directly, so inspectors used observation and spoke with relatives. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 August 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 Homeside
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2013.
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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.