CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Little Oldway
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and enough staff during the COVID-19 pressures.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 7 February 2022. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control, and also checked whether staffing pressures were affecting care.
Inspectors found that staff used protective equipment correctly. Visitors were screened and tested, and people and staff took part in regular COVID-19 testing. The home was also following the rules in place for visits, social distancing and safe admissions.
The report says there were enough staff to meet people's needs. This inspection looked only at safety, mainly infection prevention and control. The service was inspected but not rated, so it does not provide a full current rating of the home.
Correct use of PPE
Staff were observed wearing appropriate PPE and understood how to use it. People and relatives also confirmed that staff wore it correctly.
“During the inspection we observed staff wearing appropriate PPE when supporting people and staff understood the requirement to wear PPE and had been trained on how to use it.” from the report
Visitor safety checks
The home had checks for visitors, including testing and screening for symptoms or COVID-19 exposure.
“Comprehensive checks were in place for visitors to the service which included lateral flow testing and screening for symptoms of or exposure to COVID-19.” from the report
Regular testing
People living in the home and staff took part in a regular testing programme.
“Staff and people using the service all undertook a regular programme of testing to keep everyone safe and free from infection.” from the report
Enough staff
The provider told inspectors that measures were in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures. Inspectors reported that staffing levels met people's needs.
“There were sufficient staff employed in the service to meet people's needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are PPE use and infection control checked now?
- 02Do visitors still have to complete testing and symptom screening before entering?
- 03How often are people living here and staff tested for infections?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff when COVID-19 or other pressures affect staffing?
- 05What are the current ratings or inspection findings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but asked the home to review staffing and activities.
This was a planned inspection on 3 March 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and staff records, observed the home and a lunchtime meal, and checked medicines, safety and infection control.
The home cared for 30 people aged 65 and over. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity, their needs and risks were understood, medicines were managed safely, and staff worked with health professionals when needed.
There were some areas to improve. People and staff said that staff could be very busy at certain times. Some people wanted more opportunities to go out. Inspectors also noted worn parts of the building and that falls records could be clearer.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in 2016.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people gently and with respect. Staff supported people with eating and offered choices about their care.
“We observed staff being kind and gentle when talking with people.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk support
Medicines were securely stored and staff were trained and checked before giving them. Individual risk assessments gave staff clear instructions about people's health needs.
“Staff had training in the safe administration of medicines and were competency tested before administering by themselves.” from the report
Good health support
Staff recognised when people might be becoming unwell and made timely referrals to health and social care professionals.
“Referrals to health care services were made in a timely way and staff knew how to spot if a person was becoming unwell.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs well. Care plans included information about personal care, family relationships, religion and previous employment.
“Staff knew people's needs well.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingPeople, relatives and staff said staff could be rushed at certain times. Inspectors saw basic needs being met but recommended reviewing staffing levels and deployment.
“Feedback we received suggested that at certain times of the day staff were rushed and people felt they did not want to bother staff as they seemed so busy.” from the report
Limited opportunities to go out
needs fixingThere was activity provision, but some people wanted more stimulating outings and more chances to leave the home. Inspectors recommended reviewing activities with people and staff.
“People told us they would like to go out more.” from the report
Worn parts of the building
minorSome parts of the environment looked worn. The home had started improvements and had a rolling programme of modernisation planned.
“Parts of the environment looked worn.” from the report
Falls information
needs fixingFalls were recorded, but there was no analysis tool to help identify patterns. Inspectors said this limited oversight of falls and prevention work.
“Falls were recorded in the service but there was no tool for analysis.” from the report
Staff morale
minorStaff said morale had been low, although it was improving. They felt supported but wanted more acknowledgement and appreciation from the provider.
“However, the morale of staff was at a low point but was gradually getting better.” from the report
- 01How have you reviewed staffing levels and staff deployment at the busiest times since the inspection?
- 02What new outings or activities are available for people who want to leave the home more often?
- 03What progress has been made with the planned programme of modernisation?
- 04How do you now analyse falls to identify patterns and reduce the risk of further falls?
- 05What have you done to improve staff morale and provide more acknowledgement and appreciation?
This was a planned inspection that looked at the premises and care provided and assessed all five CQC question areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 April 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.
Every inspection of Little Oldway
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 April 2018.
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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.