CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Joseph House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found infection controls and visiting arrangements in place, with some guidance given about waste storage.
This was a targeted inspection on 26 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 were affecting the home. The visit was announced with one hour’s notice.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, arranging testing and managing visits. They also found the home was meeting COVID-19 vaccination requirements for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
The home had a range of activities, including use of its grounds, and had been extensively redecorated. Inspectors gave extra guidance about storing waste from people’s bedrooms during a COVID-19 outbreak.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not produce an overall quality rating or a full set of ratings for the five areas.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures in place to reduce the risk of infections spreading. This included protective equipment, testing, hygiene practices and an up-to-date infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Visits were supported inside and outside the home, with risk assessments in place. People could also visit the local village with visitors or staff.
“Risk assessments were in place to support visits completed inside the home, or outside, as people had access to large surrounding grounds.” from the report
Clean and comfortable surroundings
The home had undergone extensive redecoration and was described as clean, fresh and comfortable.
“Extensive redecoration had been completed, making the home visibly clean, fresh and comfortable throughout.” from the report
Waste storage guidance
minorInspectors gave the provider additional guidance about storing waste from people’s bedrooms during a COVID-19 outbreak. The report does not say that this led to enforcement action.
“We gave the provider some additional guidance in relation to the storage of waste items from people's bedrooms, when dealing with a COVID-19 outbreak.” from the report
- 01How are you following the additional guidance about storing waste from people’s bedrooms during a COVID-19 outbreak?
- 02How do you check visitors’ COVID-19 vaccination status and manage exemptions?
- 03How can relatives visit inside the home, outside in the grounds or in the local village?
- 04What staffing pressures are you experiencing now, and what measures are in place to manage them?
- 05What infection control arrangements are currently used for protective equipment, testing and outbreaks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other four questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 February 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, November 2018
Joseph House was rated Good overall; inspectors found caring, effective support, but safety checks and cleanliness needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 25 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines records and records about health and safety.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in October 2017. The earlier breaches had been resolved. Care plans, staff training, mental capacity assessments, notifications and quality checks had all improved.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because some communal bathrooms were not clean, some fittings were in poor condition, and environmental risks were not formally assessed.
Caring relationships
People said staff knew them well and treated them with kindness. Staff adapted how they communicated to help people make choices.
“People and staff had built positive, caring relationships.” from the report
Reliable staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including constant supervision where it was required. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse.
“There were enough staff deployed effectively across the home.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored securely and records showed people received them as prescribed. Staff were trained and their competence was checked.
“Medicines were stored securely for the protection of people living at the service and within appropriate temperature ranges.” from the report
Cleanliness and repairs
needs fixingCommunal bathrooms needed further cleaning. One old, badly stained bath was still accessible even though the manager said it was not used, and some fittings were in poor repair.
“We found that all the communal bathrooms required further cleaning, as areas such as shower plugs and baths were dirty with hair, limescale and soap scum.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingChecks such as DBS checks and references were in place, but some staff application forms contained too little information about employment history and gaps.
“For some staff application forms had very little information so we could not be assured that the registered manager had fully explored people's employment history and any gaps with them.” from the report
Drink monitoring
minorFluid records did not always include drinks taken at mealtimes and there were no individual targets. This meant records did not clearly show whether some people were drinking enough.
“Staff recorded fluid intake for some people, and we noted that they did not always do this for mealtimes, and therefore records did not accurately show how much people had received to drink.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to deep-clean the communal bathrooms and replace or remove fittings that are in poor condition?
- 02How are environmental risks in each person's bedroom and in communal areas now assessed and reviewed?
- 03How do you make sure staff application forms give a complete employment history, including any gaps?
- 04For people who need fluid monitoring, what are their individual daily targets and how are drinks at mealtimes recorded?
- 05How are people supported to become more independent in areas such as using kitchens, making meals and using communal spaces?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including all five key questions, the premises, care provided, medicines, records and health and safety arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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 Joseph House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.