CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Jamesons RCH Wormingford Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk plans, staffing, medicines systems and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective leadership, quality checks and partnership working. Staff understood the home's values and people's personalised support.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Rated Good after a focused inspection; inspectors found safe, supportive care and effective leadership, with recent improvements needed in daily records.
The home supports adults aged 18 to 65 with complex needs linked to learning disabilities, autism or mental health. It has space for seven people, and three people were living there at the inspection.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 26 November 2020. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about safeguarding. They spoke with one person, staff, the manager, a relative and professionals, and reviewed care and management records.
Inspectors found the home safe and well-led. Staff understood people's needs, medicines and infection control were managed safely, and there were enough staff. The overall rating stayed Good, but the other three areas were not inspected during this visit and their previous ratings were carried forward.
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and supported their communication, choices, dignity and independence. The home used individual apartments to promote choice and safety.
“Care and support was planned and delivered in a personalised way and tailored to individual needs.” from the report
Staffing and support
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and choices, including going out and taking part in activities.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and meet their needs and choices.” from the report
Safe medicines systems
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff had relevant training, and audits were used to identify and address errors.
“The provider had robust systems in place to ensure staff managed medicines safely.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was following infection prevention guidance and using protective equipment safely.
“We were assured the service was following correct infection prevention and control guidance and policy to protect people from infection and prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Positive relationships
Feedback from relatives and professionals described staff as kind, welcoming and respectful. The home worked with local services to support people safely.
“The staff team, frontline care staff at the service to be professional, respectful, kind, welcoming and caring.” from the report
Daily records
minorThe manager said daily records had recently needed improvement because important information was missing. Inspectors were told that staff had since been asked to record more detail.
“The registered manager told us it was recently recognised the quality of daily records needed improvement.” from the report
- 01How do you check that daily records now contain the important information needed about my relative's wellbeing?
- 02How will you support my relative to make choices, build independence and take part in community activities?
- 03What staffing levels would be provided for my relative's specific needs, including outings and planned activities?
- 04How do you review risk assessments and behaviour strategies when my relative's needs or behaviour changes?
- 05How are medicines, including any prescribed for use as required, checked and reviewed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 2020 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 safe, kind and personalised care, but identified some gaps in staffing, medicines security and monitoring.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 December 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff and the manager. They also observed care, reviewed care plans, medicines and staff records, and spoke with four relatives by telephone on 23 January 2017.
The home supported 16 adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with respect and given care that reflected their individual needs. Staff understood people's health, communication and support needs. Meals, healthcare, activities and complaints arrangements were also described positively.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors did identify issues to improve, including one occasion when staffing was one person short, medicines cupboard keys not being securely held, and some quality checks not being completed.
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's individual needs, preferences and how to support them. Inspectors found that plans were reviewed when people's circumstances changed.
“The support plans were wide-ranging and detailed and staff were made aware of changes in people's needs through handover meetings” from the report
Respectful staff
Staff communicated in ways people could understand and respected their privacy, dignity, appearance and choices.
“Our observations showed that staff respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, recorded and given as prescribed. Staff who administered medicines had training and competency checks.
“The arrangements for the management of medicines were safe.” from the report
Good support with food and health
Staff understood people's nutritional needs, including choking risks and specialist diets. People had access to healthcare professionals when needed.
“Staff had a very good understanding of each individual person's nutritional needs and how these were to be met.” from the report
Activities and community access
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, both in the home and in the local community.
“People were able to access the local community for leisure activities such as, a local swimming and water park and to undertake personal shopping.” from the report
Staffing shortfall
needs fixingDuring the inspection, staffing was one person below the level the home said it needed. Inspectors found no impact on people's safety or wellbeing on that occasion, but the rosters were difficult to understand.
“throughout the day the service was short of one member of staff.” from the report
Medicines cupboard keys
seriousThe keys were hanging on a hook in the office rather than being held securely by authorised staff. Inspectors said this created a risk that unauthorised people could access medicines.
“there was a risk that people's medication could be accessed by people not authorised to.” from the report
Complaints format
needs fixingThe complaints procedure was not provided in a format suitable for the people using the home, such as pictorial or easy-read information.
“this was not provided in an appropriate format for the people who used the service, for example, pictorial and 'easy read'.” from the report
Quality audits
needs fixingMonthly medication audits were not completed between September and December 2016. Only one home audit had been completed for the service.
“records showed that these were not completed between September and December 2016.” from the report
- 01How are medicines cupboard keys now kept securely, and who is authorised to access them?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels are maintained when a planned staff member is unavailable?
- 03How will you provide complaints information in pictorial or easy-read formats?
- 04How often are medication and home audits now completed, and who checks that any actions are finished?
- 05How will you keep relatives informed about healthcare appointments and their outcomes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with relatives contacted by telephone on 23 January 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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 Jamesons RCH Wormingford Road
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Jamesons RCH Wormingford Road →
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Jamesons RCH Wormingford Road →
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.