CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ivy View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, detailed risk assessments, safe medicines procedures and effective infection control. They noted that topical cream records did not say where the creams should be applied, and the home said this would be corrected.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was based on detailed assessments and staff had relevant training. The person was supported with food, health care and decisions, although restrictions on access to some parts of the home had not initially been reflected in DoLS records.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind, calm and respectful care. Staff supported the person's communication, privacy, dignity, independence and relationships with family.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The care plan was personalised and staff understood the person's communication needs. Some activities stopped during the pandemic, and the home had plans to review and reintroduce activities the person had enjoyed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear responsibilities, regular audits and an open culture. They noted a period when management support felt weaker, and that not all planned actions were included in the improvement plan.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Ivy View was rated Good; inspectors found personalised, kind and safe care, with a few areas needing tighter recording and follow-up.
Inspectors visited on 13 and 26 April 2022. They observed care, looked around the home, reviewed care and medicines records, and spoke with staff, a relative and the manager. The home supports one person with a learning disability.
The person was supported by a small, consistent staff team who knew their needs and communication style well. Inspectors saw calm and caring interactions. Staff supported choice, independence, health care, family relationships and activities.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable care planning and systems to check quality.
There were some points to improve. Cream instructions did not say where on the body they should be used. Some restrictions on parts of the home were not reflected in the person's DoLS records, although this was reviewed during the inspection. Community activities and team meetings also needed further review or restarting.
Personalised support
The home was set up around the person's needs and preferences. Staff supported choice, control and independence in everyday life.
“The person received personalised care and support which was completely built around their needs and preferences.” from the report
Stable staff team
A small, consistent team had supported the person for several years and understood their needs and communication.
“There was a core team of staff who had worked at the home for a number of years and knew the person well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw calm, patient and compassionate interactions. Staff protected privacy and dignity and offered reassurance when needed.
“Throughout the inspection we saw kind, relaxed, compassionate and caring interactions between the person and staff.” from the report
Good safety systems
Risk assessments and care plans were reviewed, staff understood them, and medicines and infection control were managed safely.
“The person lived safely because the service assessed, monitored and managed safety well.” from the report
Cream instructions
needs fixingTopical cream records did not state where on the body the creams should be applied. The home leader said this would be put right.
“However, we saw that topical creams did not give details of where on the body they should be applied.” from the report
Recording restrictions
seriousRestrictions on access to parts of the home were not initially reflected in the person's DoLS records. The manager reviewed this during the inspection and completed a mental capacity assessment and best interest decision.
“The person did not have access to all the areas of their home. Whilst these restrictions were not reflected in the person's DOL's, during the inspection the registered manager reviewed these restrictions” from the report
Community activities
minorSome activities the person enjoyed before the pandemic had not restarted. The home said it would review and reintroduce them.
“The registered manager advised that this will be reviewed.” from the report
Management support and meetings
needs fixingStaff described a period away from the manager when they did not feel fully supported. Team meetings had also been limited and were due to restart.
“Staff told us that they were glad the registered manager had now returned as whilst away there was a "Ghost management structure" and that they didn't feel fully supported during this time.” from the report
- 01Have the instructions for each topical cream been updated to say exactly where it should be applied?
- 02How are restrictions on access to parts of the home now recorded in the person's mental capacity, best interest and DoLS records?
- 03What is the current plan and timescale for restarting the person's preferred community activities?
- 04Have regular team meetings restarted, and how are staff supported when the registered manager is away?
- 05Are all actions from quality reviews now included in the improvement plan?
This was the first inspection of the service under its new legal entity and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 June 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.
Every inspection of Ivy View
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 August 2020.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.