CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Inglewood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some staff were not up to date with fire drills and were unclear about evacuating people safely. The provider retrained staff immediately, and inspectors also found gaps in one person's risk assessments and some unsecured wardrobes, which were addressed during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and they were involved in decisions about their care. Staff had relevant training and support, and people had choices about meals and access to healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Staff supported people's choices, privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff knew people's needs and preferences well. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships and end of life care, although some changes were not always recorded promptly in care plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture and approachable management. The provider had systems for monitoring quality and was carrying out a significant refurbishment programme.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but fire evacuation arrangements meant the safe rating Requires Improvement.
This was the first inspection since the service registered under the new provider. It was unannounced and took place on 31 October and 2 November 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People were described as safe, well cared for and treated with dignity. Staff knew people's preferences, supported their independence and provided personalised care. Inspectors also found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and good support with meals, healthcare, activities and communication.
The main shortfall was fire safety. Some staff had not completed fire drills recently and were unsure how to evacuate people safely. The provider retrained staff immediately. Some care records, risk assessments, complaint records and building surfaces also needed improvement.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. This was the first inspection of this newly registered service, although the previous provider had been rated Good in 2018.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives praised the staff's kindness and compassion. Inspectors saw a warm atmosphere, with staff respecting people's dignity and choices.
“There was a warm, welcoming atmosphere and this was fostered by all the members of staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's preferences, abilities and needs. People were encouraged to make choices and follow their own routines.
“People received very personalised care from staff who knew how to support each person in the way they preferred.” from the report
Good staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe support. Recruitment checks, training, supervision and medicines competency checks were in place.
“The provider made sure there were sufficient staff on duty to provide safe support for people.” from the report
Good involvement and communication
People were involved in decisions about their care and in interviewing new staff. Relatives said communication with management had improved.
“People were fully involved in making their own decisions and their choices were respected.” from the report
Support with food and activities
People had meal choices and support for their dietary needs. They could take part in varied activities and keep in touch with relatives and the wider community.
“There was a well-stocked 'snack station' in the dining room, where people helped themselves to fruit, biscuits and sweet treats whenever they wanted.” from the report
Fire evacuation practice
seriousSome staff were not up to date with fire drills and were unsure how to evacuate people safely. The provider retrained staff immediately, but CQC recommended keeping fire safety practices under review.
“The provider had not always made sure staff were fully up to date with fire evacuation practices.” from the report
Care and risk records
needs fixingInspectors found gaps in one person's risk assessments. Changes in people's needs had also not always been recorded in care plans for all staff to see.
“People's needs were reviewed regularly although changes had not always been recorded on the care plans for all staff to see.” from the report
Worn building surfaces
needs fixingSome surfaces were difficult to keep clean because of wear and tear. A full refurbishment was under way to address this, and a small number of unsecured wardrobes were fixed during the inspection.
“Some surfaces in the home would be difficult to keep clean due to wear and tear.” from the report
Complaint records
minorTwo complaints had been investigated and lessons had been used, but the records were difficult to retrieve. Management planned to review how complaint records were stored.
“It was difficult to retrieve the records of the complaints and the registered manager was going to look at alternate ways of storing these.” from the report
- 01How often are fire drills now carried out, and how do you check that every member of staff understands the evacuation plan?
- 02What refurbishment work has been completed, and are all areas now easy to keep clean?
- 03How do you make sure changes in a person's needs are recorded promptly in their care plan?
- 04How are risk assessments reviewed after a person's needs change?
- 05How can relatives access the complaints procedure and be confident that complaint records can be retrieved?
This was an unannounced first inspection of a newly registered service covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the previous provider's rating was Good, published in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 2022 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 Inglewood
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 September 2021.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Cumberland
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.