CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 10 The Crescent
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including testing, protective equipment, cleaning, safe admissions and outbreak planning. Staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 were considered, but this question was not rated.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Innovations Wiltshire Limited - 10 The Crescent was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for safe visiting.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 24 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
The home had regular COVID-19 testing for people and staff. Staff had enough personal protective equipment and were observed using it safely. The home was clean, well ventilated and had cleaning schedules for areas touched often.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, admissions, testing, protective equipment and possible outbreaks. Families had been supported to stay in touch when government guidance allowed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for the five care questions.
Testing and protective equipment
People and staff were tested regularly. Staff had plenty of protective equipment and used it safely, with a designated area for putting it on and removing it.
“Staff had access to plenty of personal protective equipment (PPE) and we observed them wearing it safely.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean, had cleaning schedules for high-contact areas and was well ventilated.
“The home was clean and there were cleaning schedules in place to make sure high contact areas were cleaned more often.” from the report
Infection control systems
The infection prevention and control policy had been updated. Staff received training and changes to guidance were shared through meetings, supervision and written messages.
“The provider had updated their infection prevention and control policy and provided staff with training on working during the pandemic.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in touch with families through different communication methods. Visits were supported when national guidance allowed.
“People had been supported to stay in touch with their families through the pandemic using various communication methods.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and how are changes to the visiting policy communicated to families?
- 02How often are people and staff currently tested for COVID-19?
- 03How are current staffing pressures affecting the home, if at all?
- 04How do you make sure staff receive updates when infection control guidance changes?
- 05What arrangements are in place if there is a COVID-19 outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was inspected but not rated and did not provide a full assessment of all five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some flooring and communication records still being improved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 January 2019. One inspector reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, safety records and management records. They spoke with people, staff, managers, relatives and healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found that people were supported to make choices, stay as independent as possible and take part in activities they enjoyed.
Risks, medicines, staffing and safeguarding systems were managed safely. Staff were trained and supported, and people received kind care that respected their privacy and communication needs.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection. Inspectors said there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff communicate patiently and respond appropriately to people's gestures and wishes. People appeared relaxed with staff and were treated respectfully.
“Staff interaction was kind and caring. Staff demonstrated patience and understanding of people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support
People had care plans based on their individual needs and were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People were supported to live their own lives by staff who enjoyed working at the service.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines records were complete, storage temperatures were checked and staff recruitment included the required checks. Staffing was organised around people's needs.
“Medicines were stored and administered safely. Temperatures of medicine storage were being monitored by staff and records seen demonstrated they were in a safe range.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose activities such as walks, music, reading, church visits and growing vegetables. They could also decide not to take part.
“Activities were available, and people were able to choose how they spent their time.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings and satisfaction surveys to monitor care and identify improvements. Managers said they aimed to improve the service further.
“Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Flooring needed replacement
minorAudits found ripped flooring in places. The home had made it safe, but replacement flooring was still being considered at the inspection.
“Recent audits had identified the flooring was ripped in places.” from the report
DoLS assessments were delayed
needs fixingThe home had applied for the relevant authorisations, but the local authority had not yet assessed people. The report says the local authority had explained the delay.
“Whilst the service had applied for DoLS authorisations, the local authority had not yet assessed people.” from the report
- 01Has the ripped flooring now been fully replaced, and what flooring was chosen?
- 02Which people's DoLS applications were waiting for assessment, and have those assessments now taken place?
- 03Was the planned personalised picture gallery for communication completed, and how is it kept up to date?
- 04How are staffing levels decided when someone wants to take part in an activity that needs extra support?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing personalised care plans and choosing activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service, including the premises and care, and all five CQC questions were assessed. 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 10 The Crescent
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.