CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Island Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines management. The home was clean and essential safety systems were checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed. Staff had relevant training, including training about challenging behaviour and drugs and alcohol, and people could access healthcare support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, friendly and attentive, and knew people's needs, likes and dislikes. People and relatives were involved in care planning, and privacy, dignity and equality were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was flexible and based on people's preferences and abilities. The home offered activities, supported communication needs and had a complaints procedure.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff were described as open and supportive. Audits, meetings and other checks were used to monitor care, staff performance and safety.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 August 2019. Inspectors reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment and training records, audits, incidents and the environment. They also spoke with people living at the home, staff and a healthcare professional.
Inspectors found that people felt safe and well cared for. Staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and respect, and supported their choices, including cultural, dietary and personal preferences. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and risks were assessed.
The home provided activities, healthcare support and personalised care plans. Inspectors also found quality checks and management systems were in place. The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was rated Good.
The previous inspection, published on 7 February 2017, also rated the service Good. The report says the ratings for all five areas remained Good.
Kind and respectful staff
People were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect.
“Our observations showed staff were kind, caring, friendly, attentive and engaging.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and found that medicines were given, stored and managed safely.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's preferences, abilities and needs. People and their relatives were involved in creating and reviewing these plans.
“People, and their relatives where appropriate, were fully involved in creating and reviewing their care plans.” from the report
Activities and healthcare support
People had access to activities, exercise sessions and healthcare support, including a weekly drop-in session with a community psychiatric nurse.
“The home arranged a weekly drop in session with a community psychiatric nurse so people could access advice and support.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager used audits, meetings and checks to monitor the quality and safety of the service.
“Quality assurance processes, such as audits and resident and staff meetings, ensured the registered manager and provider had the information they required to monitor staff performance as well as the safety and quality of the care provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular mental health or substance misuse needs?
- 02How often would my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed?
- 03What specialist training do staff have for challenging behaviour, drugs and alcohol?
- 04What activities and healthcare support would be available to my relative?
- 05How would you respond if my relative or family raised a concern or complaint?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the care home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines checks and some building repairs needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 December 2016. Inspectors spoke with seven people, staff and managers. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, complaints, accidents, staffing and management checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, trained staff and detailed, personalised care plans.
Staff were described as caring and quick to respond. People were involved in decisions, supported with healthcare and activities, and able to raise complaints. Managers used meetings, feedback and audits to monitor the service.
There were some shortfalls. Staff did not always check that people had taken their medicines. Some toilets, bathrooms and showers did not lock, and there were damaged areas including a broken pane of glass that inspectors said was a potential fire risk. Food choices did not fully meet one person's religious needs at the time of the visit.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found staff caring, calm and respectful. They understood people's mental health needs and treated people as individuals.
“Staff were caring and kind and treated people as individuals, recognising their privacy and dignity at all times.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, histories, health needs and goals. People were supported to develop independence and take part in activities.
“Care planning was linked to people's needs and care plans were written in a person centred way which included information about people's preferences and, where possible, their life histories.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and support activities. Staff had essential training, induction and regular supervision.
“Staff felt there were enough staff to keep people safe and ensure people could attend activities and have planned trips out from the home.” from the report
Open management
People could speak with the manager, attend meetings and give feedback. The provider acted on some suggestions, including arranging gym and swimming trips.
“That meant the provider embraced the quality assurance process and provided evidence of an open and transparent culture.” from the report
Medicines were not always checked
seriousSome people were not observed taking their medicines. Three people were seen walking away with tablets before taking them, so the home needed to make administration more consistent and safe.
“We also saw three people walk off with tablets in their hand, and take them once away from the medicines trolley.” from the report
Repairs and fire risk
seriousSome areas needed repair, including a broken pane of glass in a stairwell door, holes in walls and faulty door locks. Inspectors said the broken glass was a potential fire risk.
“There was a broken pane of glass in the stairwell door on the third floor of the home, which was a potential fire risk.” from the report
Bathroom privacy
needs fixingMany toilet, bath and shower rooms did not lock. Inspectors said this did not promote people's dignity.
“Many of the toilet, bath and shower rooms did not lock, which did not promote people's dignity.” from the report
Religious food choice
needs fixingThe central kitchen provided halal chicken but no other halal meat. Inspectors said this restricted one person's religious dietary needs, although the provider began addressing it during the visit.
“This meant the person's religious needs were restricted.” from the report
- 01How do staff now make sure every person is observed taking medicines when this is needed?
- 02Have the broken stairwell glass, wall damage and faulty toilet and bathroom locks all been repaired?
- 03How do you make sure people can see the available meal choices each day?
- 04What halal and other religiously suitable meals can you provide now?
- 05How do you check that repairs, cleanliness and dignity issues are identified and followed through promptly?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, medicines, staffing, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 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 Island Place
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
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 20 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 an hour of Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.