CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Imola
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and good medicine support, but safety checks, infection control and leadership needed to improve.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 12 and 22 July 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because they had received concerns about safety, a medicine error and the culture. They spoke with managers, staff, relatives and professionals, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
People were seen engaging positively with staff. Relatives were mostly positive about the care, especially from staff who knew people well. Care plans and risk assessments were detailed, and medicines were generally managed safely.
There were important weaknesses. Infection control was not always good, some shifts did not have enough experienced staff, and quality checks had not dealt with known problems. The provider also failed to send required safeguarding and other notifications. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Positive relationships
People were observed engaging positively with staff. Relatives were largely positive, particularly about established staff who knew people well.
“We observed people engaging positively with staff who were committed to promoting their wellbeing.” from the report
Detailed risk guidance
Risk assessments and positive behaviour plans were personalised and gave staff practical guidance. They were reviewed regularly.
“There were comprehensive risk assessments and detailed guidance to care staff with advice on how to minimise risk.” from the report
Medicines support
Staff supported people with medicines in line with their care plans. Training, competency checks and monitoring were in place.
“Staff supported people safely and in a person-centred manner with their medicines, as outlined in their care plan.” from the report
Working with professionals
The service involved health and social care professionals in people's care and best-interest decisions.
“We saw evidence in care records that professionals were fully involved and consulted about people's care.” from the report
Infection control
seriousThe home was not consistently clean. Visitor checks and the use of protective equipment were also not always carried out as required.
“We were not fully assured the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Experienced staffing
seriousAlthough there were usually enough staff in total, some shifts did not have enough experienced staff. Inspectors saw a new staff member alone with people who presented risks.
“There were usually the correct number of staff on shift. However, some shifts did not have enough experienced staff who knew how to support people safely.” from the report
Weak quality oversight
seriousAudits identified issues but managers did not prioritise them effectively. A fire drill had not taken place since July 2020, and the kitchen still needed a deep clean.
“The provider had failed to take action to effectively mitigate risk at the service and ensure the registered manager had an understanding of their regulatory requirements.” from the report
People not always engaged
needs fixingSome feedback and records suggested people were not consistently supported to stay engaged while at home.
“Feedback from some staff and families and review of records indicated people were not consistently engaged when at home.” from the report
- 01How many experienced staff will be working on each shift, especially when new staff are supporting people with complex needs?
- 02What has been done to improve cleaning, the kitchen deep clean, visitor checks and the correct use of protective equipment?
- 03When was the last fire drill, and how will you make sure drills happen regularly?
- 04What actions have been completed from the CQC action plan, and how are you checking that risks are now dealt with promptly?
- 05How will people be supported to stay engaged and achieve good outcomes when they are at home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 2021 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, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective leadership.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection. An inspector visited on 15 March 2019 and spoke to relatives by telephone on 19 March. The inspection looked at all five CQC areas.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were handled safely and staff had suitable training.
People were treated with dignity and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities. Staff understood people's communication needs and worked with health and other professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 7 September 2016.
Managing complex needs
Staff understood people's behaviour support plans and recognised early signs that anxiety was increasing. This helped them prevent situations from escalating.
“Staff had a good understanding on how to respond to people's complex behaviours and recognised the early signs.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans recorded people's communication needs, life stories, goals and abilities. Staff adapted support to help people take part in daily activities and pursue their interests.
“Support plans focused on what people could do and informed staff of the support people needed to achieve this.” from the report
Respect and communication
People were treated with respect and staff used communication methods suited to each person. Relatives said communication with the home was good.
“Throughout the inspection we noted there was a very relaxed atmosphere Staff supported people with respect, empathy and humour.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team carried out regular checks, involved people and relatives, and used feedback and shared learning to improve the service.
“There was an effective quality assurance system in place to ensure the quality of the service and to drive improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative if their behaviour or anxiety changed?
- 02How would you make sure my relative's communication method and personal preferences are understood by all staff?
- 03What training and competency checks have staff completed for medicines and complex support needs?
- 04How would you support my relative to develop independence and take part in activities they choose?
- 05How are relatives involved in care reviews and decisions about changing support?
This was a planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC areas; the visit was unannounced and was followed by telephone calls to relatives. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 2019 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 Imola
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.