CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ivy Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse, supported by enough trained staff and helped to manage individual risks. Inspectors also found safe recruitment, infection control and medicines arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had personalised assessments and care plans, a varied diet and support with health appointments. Staff training was in place, although supervision and appraisals had been less frequent during the registered manager's absence.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to communicate, maintain relationships and express their views.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's communication, routines, wishes and abilities. Staff supported independence, community activities and complaints, with care plans reviewed monthly.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Key management tasks and actions from an internal audit had not been completed. The absence of the registered manager had weakened day-to-day management and support for staff.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home's leadership required improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 16 and 17 May 2018. Inspectors reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, training, supervision and policies. They spoke with managers, support staff, two families and professionals, and used observation where some people could not or did not want to give their views.
Inspectors found that people were safe and supported by enough trained staff. Medicines were given safely. Care was personalised, people were treated with kindness and dignity, and staff supported choice, independence, activities and contact with health professionals.
The overall rating stayed Good, as did Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the registered manager had been absent for several months, staff support and training had weakened, and some management and audit actions were unfinished.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough trained staff to meet people's needs, with extra cover available for sickness and holidays. Medicines were administered safely and records showed people received them when needed.
“People were protected from abuse with sufficient numbers of trained staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had strong relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy, communication and family relationships.
“Staff knew the people well and treated them with kindness and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual communication, routines, choices and support needs. Staff also encouraged independence with everyday tasks and community activities.
“People continued to receive individualised care that reflected their needs, choices and wishes.” from the report
Health and consent
The home worked with health professionals and supported people to attend appointments. Inspectors found appropriate consent and lawful Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards arrangements.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible” from the report
Management cover and follow-up
needs fixingThe registered manager had been away for several months. Some key tasks, staff support and training actions were not completed, including actions identified through the provider's own audit.
“In the registered manager's absence, key management tasks had not been completed.” from the report
Staff supervision and appraisal
needs fixingSupervision and appraisals had been less frequent while the registered manager was absent. Inspectors said this had caused a deterioration in day-to-day support for staff.
“The provider had continued to deliver good service for the people who live there but, there had been a deterioration in the day to day support for staff especially in relation to staff supervision and appraisal.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for the home's day-to-day management, and how are outstanding management tasks being checked?
- 02How often are staff now receiving supervision and appraisals?
- 03Have all actions from the provider's internal audit been completed, including mental capacity assessments and training updates?
- 04How will the home make sure staffing remains sufficient for people's activities, appointments and individual routines?
- 05How are people and their families involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 July 2018 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 Ivy Cottage
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.