CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ivydene Residential and Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse, risks were assessed and medicines were managed safely. Some risk information and care records were not always updated after people's needs changed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff received training and people were supported with food, fluids and healthcare. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and said their preferences were known and respected. Inspectors saw people being offered choices and supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people and relatives were involved in them. The home offered a range of activities and responded appropriately to complaints, although some daily care records did not always match the care given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager and management team had clear responsibilities and used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality. They had identified record keeping as an area for improvement.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some care records were not always kept up to date and call bells could be delayed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 14 and 16 March 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and outside health professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs on the inspection days, and infection control arrangements were in place.
People were seen being treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care, supported to access health services and offered activities. Inspectors also found that some care records were not updated after changes in people's needs, and some daily records did not reflect all the care given.
Protection from abuse
Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and knew what action to take if they suspected harm. Inspectors found that incidents had been identified and acted on appropriately.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse as staff were aware of their safeguarding responsibilities.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and knew their preferences. Inspectors saw people being offered choices and supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
“During our observations we saw staff being kind and caring in their approach.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and recorded through established systems. Staff were trained and checked as competent.
“Systems and processes were in place to make sure that medicines were ordered, stored, disposed of and given to people safely.” from the report
Activities and relationships
Dedicated activities staff arranged individual and group activities based on people's interests. Families were welcome to visit and people were supported to maintain important relationships.
“The service employed dedicated activities staff who organised a wide variety of individual and group activities based upon people's interests and wishes.” from the report
Management improvements
The newly registered manager was working with staff and the provider to improve care quality. Audits, meetings and staff competency checks were being used to monitor the service.
“The service had a newly registered manager whose focus was on improving the quality of care and service along with developing staff knowledge and skills.” from the report
Care records not always updated
needs fixingSome information was not updated or recorded after people's needs changed. The manager had identified this and was taking action, but it is important to check how consistently this has improved.
“However, information was not always updated or recorded in people's care records as it should be.” from the report
Daily records did not always match care
needs fixingSome daily records did not fully reflect the care people had received, including oral care. The home said measures were being put in place to improve this.
“However, some of these records did not always reflect the daily care given.” from the report
Delays answering call bells
needs fixingPeople gave mixed views about staffing. Some said they sometimes waited a long time for their call bell to be answered, especially around mealtimes, although inspectors found enough staff on the inspection days.
“Sometimes there's a delay when I ring my bell.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure care records are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 02How do you check that daily records accurately show the care each person has received, including oral care?
- 03How quickly are call bells answered, particularly at mealtimes, and how is this monitored?
- 04What progress has the newly registered manager made on the improvement actions identified in the report?
- 05Which activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, abilities and communication needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the care, premises and infection control arrangements; all five ratings were assessed during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 2023 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, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one meal-temperature issue addressed during the visit.
This was a comprehensive inspection over 23 and 30 October 2017. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, observed care and meals, looked around the home, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and quality records.
The home supported 53 older people, including people with nursing needs, complex care needs and dementia. Inspectors found enough safely recruited and trained staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and good access to healthcare.
People described staff as kind, patient and respectful. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. Activities were available, complaints were investigated, and the management team used audits, meetings and surveys to monitor the service.
The home remained Good in all five areas and overall. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection. One person said their meal was sometimes cold, but staff acted on this and the problem was not reported on the second inspection day.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff during the day and night. Call bells were answered promptly and staff spent time with people.
“This indicated there were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People praised staff's kindness. Inspectors saw friendly interactions, patience and support for people's dignity and independence.
“Throughout our inspection, we observed staff interacting with people in a friendly and respectful manner.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about individual needs, communication, choices and preferences. People were involved in reviewing their plans.
“Each person had a care plan that described their individual needs and guided staff about how to promote people's independence and when and how to offer support.” from the report
Healthcare support
People could see health and social care professionals when needed. A pharmacist visited weekly, and other professionals were involved when required.
“Records showed people were also referred to other healthcare professionals such as the community nurse, dietician and chiropodist as needed.” from the report
Good monitoring
The manager and provider used daily checks, regular audits, meetings and surveys to monitor care and the home environment.
“There were effective monitoring systems in place to ensure the home provided person centred care in a safe environment.” from the report
Meal temperature
minorOne person said their meal was sometimes cold because their plate was not always warmed. Staff acted immediately, and the person said the food was no longer cold on the second inspection day.
“On the first day of the inspection, one person told us that at times their meal was cold.” from the report
- 01How do you check that staffing levels remain suitable for my relative's needs, including overnight?
- 02How are medicines reviewed and how will you tell me about any changes or concerns?
- 03How will my relative's care plan record their communication needs, preferences and daily choices?
- 04What is the current position on any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application affecting my relative?
- 05How do you check that meals are served at the right temperature and meet my relative's nutritional needs?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings, carried out over two days, with the first day unannounced. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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 Ivydene Residential and Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ivydene Residential and Nursing Home →
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ivydene Residential and Nursing Home →
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“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.”
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.