CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Little Ingestre House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, safe recruitment and regular safety checks. However, non-blister-packed medicines had not been logged correctly and stocks of three medicines were inaccurate.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training and supervision. People were involved in care planning, supported to eat and drink well, and helped to access healthcare services.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed warm relationships and found that staff respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence. People were involved in care reviews and residents' meetings.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication needs and personal histories. People were supported with activities, relationships and complaints information in accessible formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider and registered manager used audits, feedback and investigations to improve the service. Inspectors found that the medicines issue was acted on immediately.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Little Ingestre House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines records were not always accurate.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 September 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and the registered manager. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness and respect, involved in their care, supported to make choices and encouraged to develop their independence.
There was one medicines problem. Non-blister-packed medicines had not been logged correctly, so stocks of three medicines did not match the records. The registered manager acted immediately, arranged extra checks and repeat staff training, and carried out an investigation.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 11 March 2017, and kept the same overall rating. Inspectors noted that the building was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service, although they found that its design and setting reduced the impact of this.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm and comfortable relationships between staff and people. People said staff listened and acted on their wishes.
“During the inspection we observed warm and comfortable relationships between staff and people living in the home.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in care planning and encouraged to gain skills and become more independent. Their preferences and goals were recorded.
“People were encouraged and supported to maintain and improve their independence.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's histories, likes, dislikes, health needs and communication preferences. Care plans were updated and used to guide individual support.
“Care records contained important information regarding people's histories, families, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Good management
The provider and registered manager used audits, feedback and investigations to identify improvements. Staff said they felt supported and could raise concerns.
“The registered manager and provider made effective use of audits and other sources of information to review and improve practice.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingNon-blister-packed medicines had not been logged correctly, and stocks of three medicines were not accurate. The registered manager acted immediately, but the family should check that the corrective actions were completed and sustained.
“However, we identified that non-blister packed medication had not been logged correctly and so stocks of three medications were not correct.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of support. Inspectors said the building's design and setting helped reduce the negative impact, but families should consider whether it feels suitable for their relative.
“The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the inaccurate recording of three medicines, and how are you checking that records and stocks now match?
- 02Has the repeat medicines training for staff been completed, and can you explain how its effectiveness is checked?
- 03How will you make sure the larger size of the home does not reduce my relative's choice, independence or sense of being at home?
- 04How would you support my relative's preferred activities, communication needs and personal routines?
- 05What would happen if my relative needed end of life care, given that nobody was receiving it at the time of the inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 October 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, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one carpet awaiting replacement because of a smell.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 February 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with seven people, managers and care staff, and checked care records, staff files, rotas and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough trained staff.
People were involved in their care and choices. Inspectors found respectful support, suitable food and health care, activities that matched people's interests, and a complaints process. The home had systems to monitor and improve its service.
The previous inspection in November 2014 also found no concerns and rated the home Good. At this inspection, two registered managers had recently been recruited. One person's carpet was waiting to be replaced with flooring because of a smell.
Safe staffing and support
People said staff were available and responded promptly. Inspectors saw that people were not left for long periods without supervision or support.
“From our observations people did not have to wait to have their care needs met and people were not left for long periods of time with no supervision or support.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely by trained staff. Inspectors observed medicines being administered according to people's individual needs.
“People's medicines were stored and managed safely and we saw and people told us they had their medicines at the prescribed times.” from the report
Respect and choice
Staff respected people's privacy, dignity and personal choices. People were involved in decisions about their care and daily lives.
“This showed that people were being offered choices and these choices were being respected.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could take part in hobbies and activities they chose, both at the home and in the community.
“People were supported to be involved in hobbies and activities of their choice.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used regular audits, feedback and visits from an area manager to check the service and follow up actions.
“Monthly quality audits were completed throughout the service and the information was forwarded to the provider.” from the report
Flooring still awaiting replacement
minorOne person's carpet was due to be replaced because of a smell. The area manager was expected to follow this up after the inspection.
“We were informed that one person's carpet was waiting to be replaced with flooring due to a malodour and the area manager was due to chase this up the day after our inspection.” from the report
- 01Has the carpet awaiting replacement because of a malodour now been replaced with suitable flooring?
- 02How are the two recently recruited registered managers sharing responsibilities and providing management cover?
- 03How are staff supervisions and ongoing support monitored now that the managers have taken up their roles?
- 04How often are medicines, health and safety, and building maintenance checked, and how are actions followed up?
- 05How will my relative be involved in their care plan, activities and decisions about daily life?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with all five ratings given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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 Little Ingestre House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 July 2013.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £980 to £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.