CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Keychange Charity Romans Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Keychange Charity Romans Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were effective.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 18 March 2021. It was carried out after a Covid-19 outbreak to check infection prevention and control. The home was inspected but not rated overall.
Inspectors found systems to reduce infection risks. New residents were assessed and isolated for 14 days. Visitors were checked, tested and directed to a separate visiting room or an outdoor visiting pod. Staff had regular Covid-19 tests and used protective equipment.
The home was clear of Covid-19 and had reopened to visitors on 8 March 2021. Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with regular cleaning and safe handling of laundry and food trays.
Visitor safety
Visitors were checked at the door, asked to take a lateral flow test and given protective equipment. Visits could take place in a separate room or an outdoor pod, which was cleaned after each visit.
“A 'pod' in the garden, made of clear plastic, enabled people to meet their relatives safely and at a social distance.” from the report
Testing and protective equipment
Staff had weekly PCR tests and lateral flow tests at the start of shifts. Protective equipment and hand sanitiser were available around the home.
“Staff were tested weekly for Covid-19 through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests and at the start of their shift using LFD tests.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Regular cleaning schedules, including deep cleaning, were in place.
“The home was seen to be clean and hygienic, with 'high touch' areas being cleaned regularly.” from the report
Safe admissions and isolation
New admissions were assessed for Covid-19 risks and people had to isolate in their rooms for 14 days after admission.
“People had to isolate in their rooms for 14 days following admission.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now for new admissions and how long must people isolate?
- 02How are visitors currently checked, tested and supported to visit safely?
- 03What Covid-19 testing is currently required for staff and residents?
- 04How often are high-touch areas and visiting spaces cleaned?
- 05How are risk assessments managed for residents who visit relatives outside the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices following a Covid-19 outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 April 2021 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, August 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home’s leadership required improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 7 June 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received suitable care, were treated with kindness and dignity, and had personalised care plans and activities.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The registered manager had left, no replacement had yet been recruited, and there were not enough checks to monitor the service overall. The overall rating was still Good, but the leadership problems needed attention.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks were identified, assessed and managed, with guidance for staff.
“People's risks had been identified and assessed appropriately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed staff responding promptly and treating people with dignity.
“People were looked after by kind and caring staff who knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people’s histories, preferences, health needs and risks. Staff used this information to guide people’s care.
“Care plans provided detailed information about people and comprehensive guidance for staff.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People could choose from activities such as arts and crafts, gentle exercise, outings and one-to-one sessions. Residents’ meetings and surveys were also used to gather views.
“A range of activities was organised for people by the activities co-ordinator who worked two hours a day between Tuesday and Friday.” from the report
No registered manager in place
needs fixingThe previous manager had left and no steps had yet been taken to recruit a new manager. Two deputy managers were running the home day to day.
“The previous manager had de-registered with the Commission, but no steps had been taken to recruit a new manager at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
needs fixingThere was no complete system for checking the quality of the service, including no overall medicines audit. Management agreed that a stronger audit system was needed.
“There was a lack of audits overall to provide a full picture of what was happening at the home.” from the report
Bedrail paperwork gap
needs fixingOne person using bedrails did not initially have the required mental capacity assessment or legal decision recorded. The home later said that an application and best-interests meeting had been completed.
“However, there was no mental capacity assessment to reflect this and no application had been made for DoLS.” from the report
Staffing pressure at busy times
minorStaffing levels were judged adequate and safe overall, but some people and staff said there could be too few staff at busy times, especially in the mornings.
“Some people felt there were enough staff and others said there could be a shortage, especially at busy times of the day.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager been appointed since the inspection, and who is legally responsible for the home now?
- 02What quality and medicines audits are currently completed, and how are problems followed up?
- 03How are staffing levels checked during busy morning and afternoon periods?
- 04Have all mental capacity assessments, best-interests decisions and applications relating to bedrails been completed and reviewed?
- 05How are relatives now involved in reviewing electronic care plans?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 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 Keychange Charity Romans Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Keychange Charity Romans Care Home →
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Keychange Charity Romans Care Home →
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 September 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.