CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Innova House -CBIR
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding and people's individual risks. Medicines were managed safely overall, but inspectors found some gaps in one person's medicines administration records and were told action was being taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and people received support from health professionals, including physiotherapy. People's nutrition, decision-making and support needs were assessed and planned.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors saw staff provide reassurance, encouragement and emotional support, although records of relatives' regular involvement in care reviews were limited.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People had personalised activities and progression plans intended to support independence and well-being.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear leadership, an open culture and quality audits. The manager maintained an action plan and used feedback and checks to support improvement.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 8 January 2019. One inspector reviewed records, staffing, training, medicines, audits and information from other agencies. They also spoke with people using the service, a relative and staff, and observed care.
The home cared for nine people at the time, with space for up to 12 because three bedrooms were not in use. Inspectors found all five areas were Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
They found staff understood people's complex needs, treated people kindly and supported independence. Care plans were detailed, activities were personalised, and safety, staffing, training and medicines systems were generally effective.
There were some gaps in one person's medicines administration records. The report also says records of relatives' regular involvement in care reviews were limited. The overall Good rating continued from the previous inspection in August 2016.
Personalised care
Staff knew people's individual needs, preferences and ways of communicating. Care plans were detailed and were updated when people's needs changed.
“Care plans provided a very good level of detail about the amount of support the person required and their personal preferences in relation to their care.” from the report
Supporting independence
The home used individual progression plans, activities and practical support to help people achieve personal goals and become more independent.
“People were encouraged to maintain or increase their independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff responding to people's communication, offering reassurance and treating them with dignity.
“Staff were quick to understand when people tried to communicate their wishes and they treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Good safety arrangements
The home had risk assessments, safeguarding processes, suitable staffing and regular safety checks. Staff knew how to report concerns and incidents.
“We found systems and processes were in place to keep people safe.” from the report
Positive leadership
Staff described an open culture with good communication and support. Audits and an action plan were used to monitor and improve the service.
“Effective systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and the care provided.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingInspectors found some gaps in one person's medicines administration records. The home had identified the issue and was taking action, including further staff training.
“We identified some gaps in the medicines administration records for a person, which we discussed with a member of staff.” from the report
Recording relatives' involvement
minorRelatives were involved in care reviews, but the report says their regular involvement was not fully documented.
“People were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care and relatives were involved in care reviews, however, documentation of their regular involvement was limited.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the gaps in medicines administration records, and how do you now check that records are complete?
- 02How will you involve and keep relatives informed during care reviews?
- 03How do you learn each person's communication methods, especially when they cannot fully express themselves verbally?
- 04What individual progression goals and activities would you offer my relative?
- 05How do you involve health professionals, such as physiotherapists, in reviewing my relative's care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection in August 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 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 Innova House -CBIR
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 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.