CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ivonbrook Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and improved leadership, but medicines timing records were not always clear.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 July 2022. Inspectors spoke with 10 people, five care staff and managers. They checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, audits and other documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe recruitment, secure medicines, good infection control and a clean, well-maintained building. People said they felt safe and staff responded to call bells quickly.
The inspection focused on Safe and Well-led. Safe was rated Good again. Well-led improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good. The other question ratings were not inspected during this visit and were carried forward from the last inspection when calculating the overall rating.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and given by trained staff. Records were regularly checked, and there was guidance for medicines prescribed when needed.
“People received their medicines safely. Medicines were administered by staff that were trained to do so.” from the report
Good management checks
Managers carried out broad audits covering areas such as safety, maintenance and medicines. Inspectors saw that action was taken when errors were found.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Listening to people
People's suggestions and feedback were considered, and families were involved in care where appropriate.
“People felt listened to and engaged with regarding the service and how it worked.” from the report
Medicine times not always recorded
needs fixingRecords did not always show the specific time of day medicines were given. The manager said this would be reviewed and recorded.
“It was not always clear what specific time of day medicines were given, as this was not being recorded.” from the report
Call bell monitoring
minorThe call bell system could not electronically monitor or audit response times at the inspection. A newer system was expected to be introduced.
“The call bell system in use did not currently allow for electronic monitoring or audits” from the report
- 01Are the exact times that medicines are given now recorded for every person?
- 02Has the newer call bell system been introduced, and can response times now be monitored?
- 03How do you check that staff follow each person's risk assessments, especially after falls?
- 04What improvements were made after the previous Requires Improvement rating for well-led?
- 05How are family feedback and suggestions recorded and followed up?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 August 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 overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home was not consistently well-led and had no registered manager.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 11 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with five people, six relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, recruitment files, training information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines support, suitable risk assessments, respectful care, good access to health professionals and a range of activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Some improvements had been made since the previous inspection, including more up-to-date care plans and regular staff supervision. However, these improvements were not yet fully established, there was no registered manager, and people and relatives had not yet been asked for formal feedback.
The overall rating was Good. This means the inspection found the main areas of care were meeting the required standard, but the weaker management rating is important to discuss with the home.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Risks were assessed and reviewed, and staff knew how to respond to safety concerns.
“People's individual needs were met as sufficient numbers of trained staff were available to support them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated warmly and respectfully. Staff supported people's dignity, choices and independence.
“People were treated with consideration and respect by the staff team and they were supported to maintain their dignity.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities inside and outside the home. Relatives were welcomed and supported to stay involved.
“People had opportunities to take part in social activities to promote their well-being.” from the report
Improved care records
Care plans were more accurate and reviewed regularly than at the previous inspection. This helped staff respond to changing needs.
“People's care plans were up to date and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure any changing needs were identified.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post at the inspection. The provider had plans to register a manager, but the process had not started.
“At the time of this inspection there was no registered manager in post.” from the report
Improvements not fully established
needs fixingThe home had made changes, but inspectors said they had not yet become consistent and lasting.
“continued and sustained care and service improvements have not yet been embedded by the provider.” from the report
Limited formal feedback
minorPeople and relatives had not yet been asked to complete a survey or give formal feedback. A survey was planned after the inspection.
“People and their relatives told us they had not been asked to give any feedback or complete a survey regarding their opinion of the service.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what progress has been made towards appointing and registering a manager?
- 02How do you check that improvements to care records, staff supervision and training continue over time?
- 03How are residents and relatives now asked for feedback, and can you show examples of changes made because of that feedback?
- 04How do you check that medicines, including creams and lotions, have clear instructions for staff?
- 05Which activities are available to someone with my relative's interests, mobility and communication needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and included the care, accommodation, records, staffing and quality monitoring systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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 Ivonbrook Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.