CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at La Marsh
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding, risk management, recruitment and medicines systems. The home was clean and staff knew how to respond to concerns and emergencies.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and support. People received appropriate food, drink and healthcare, although some parts of the building needed redecoration or updating.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care, daily routines, clothing, food and activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People had activities and support to maintain relationships, but transport and driving availability sometimes limited activities outside the home.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had clear values and effective quality checks. People and staff were encouraged to give feedback, and the home worked well with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements still needed to the building, transport and end-of-life plans.
This was an unannounced planned inspection over two days. The inspector visited the home, spoke with one resident and three staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicines, management and safety records. Feedback was also gathered from health professionals and one family member.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, and supported to make choices and build independence.
Care plans were detailed and staff understood people's needs. Medicines were managed safely, food and drink matched people's preferences, and staff worked with health professionals. Activities were available, although transport sometimes limited activities outside the home.
Some areas needed attention. Parts of the bathroom, kitchen and hallway needed redecoration or updating. End-of-life plans did not initially include all the information needed, but these plans were rewritten during the inspection. The last rating was also Good, published in May 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff developed positive relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy and choices.
“Staff were kind and caring and promoted people's dignity and privacy.” from the report
Personalised support
The home focused on choice, control, independence and inclusion. Staff understood people's preferences and communication methods.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe medicines and care
Medicines were given as prescribed, records were accurate, and staff had regular training and competency checks.
“Staff received training and completed competency assessments every six months to ensure that they were following the correct procedures when administering medication.” from the report
Good oversight
Regular audits were used to find areas for improvement, and action plans were completed when needed.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Building updates pending
minorThe bathroom, kitchen and hallway carpets needed redecoration or updating. The provider had agreed to the work, but there was no confirmed start date at the inspection.
“some areas of the home are in need of redecoration or updating.” from the report
Transport could limit activities
needs fixingNot all staff could drive the home's vehicle, which sometimes restricted activities outside the home. The provider was considering replacing the vehicle.
“Not all staff could drive the home's vehicle, and this sometimes limited people attending activities outside of the home.” from the report
End-of-life plans needed more detail
needs fixingWritten plans covered what people wanted after death but did not initially cover their wishes during the final stage of life. The plans were rewritten during the inspection.
“Written information contained details of what people wanted to happen after death, but not leading up to it.” from the report
- 01Has the redecoration or updating of the bathroom, kitchen and hallway carpets now been completed?
- 02Has the home's vehicle been replaced, and how often can residents take part in activities outside the home?
- 03How are each person's end-of-life wishes recorded now, including the care they want before death?
- 04How do you make sure agency and bank staff understand each person's needs when there are staff vacancies?
- 05How will my relative be involved in decisions about their daily routine, activities and care plan?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with a home visit, observation, record checks and feedback from people connected with the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 November 2019 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, May 2017
La Marsh was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no major shortfalls reported.
The unannounced inspection took place on 11 April 2017. One inspector reviewed records, observed care and spoke with a person, relatives, staff and health professionals. The inspector also checked medicines, staffing, recruitment, training, risks and quality monitoring.
The home provided care and accommodation for up to six people with a learning disability. Five people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, regularly reviewed risk assessments and staff who understood people's needs and choices.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This meant the home remained Good, the same overall rating as at the previous inspection on 6 January 2015.
Safe support
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed. Staff understood how to support people safely at home and in the community.
“Systems were in place to manage risks to people using the service and to keep them safe.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received training for people's specific needs and said they received regular supervision and appraisal.
“People experienced a good quality of life because staff received training that gave them the right skills and knowledge to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed responding calmly and attentively. They supported people with dignity and understood non-verbal communication.
“We saw the interactions between staff and people using the service were kind, caring and friendly.” from the report
Personalised daily life
Care records included individual routines, interests and food preferences. People were supported with activities, shopping, walks, holidays and community visits.
“People's care records contained personalised information about them, such as their day time and evening care and support routines, hobbies, interests, food preferences and family/ life history.” from the report
No registered manager in post
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. A manager had been appointed and an application to register them was in progress, while other managers supported the home.
“A registered manager was not in post at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01Has the appointed manager now been registered with CQC, and who is responsible for the home until then?
- 02How will you support my relative's communication needs and help them make day-to-day choices?
- 03How are risk assessments reviewed when my relative's mobility, eating or community activities change?
- 04What activities and community visits are available, and how will these reflect my relative's interests?
- 05How will you keep me informed about changes in my relative's care and health needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas; the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection in January 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 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 La Marsh
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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 Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 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.