CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Little Paddocks
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. There were enough staff, medicines were given as prescribed and infection control arrangements were in place, although recruitment records and access to risk information needed attention.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was adapted when needs changed. Staff received induction and training, and people were supported with meals, healthcare and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff were kind, knew people well, respected privacy and dignity, and supported independence and daily choices.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans did not always contain clear or accessible information, and relatives were not always involved in reviews. Communication about changes and responses to concerns were not always prompt.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new registered manager was beginning to make positive changes. The home had audits and worked with health professionals, although relatives were not always kept up to date about management or staffing changes.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Little Paddocks was rated Good overall, but inspectors found care planning and communication with relatives needed improvement.
Inspectors visited on 29 September 2021. They spoke with three people living in the home, five relatives, six staff members and two health professionals. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. People said they felt safe and staff were described as kind. Medicines were given as prescribed, staffing levels met people's needs, and staff received relevant training.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Relatives were not always involved in care planning or kept informed about changes. Care plans did not always give clear information about people's needs, preferences and relationships, and concerns were not always dealt with promptly.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the home was generally providing good care. However, the lower Responsive rating shows that families should pay particular attention to communication, care plan reviews and how the home responds to concerns.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff knew people's risks and responded to their needs promptly.
“Relatives told us they felt people were safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and supported them to make choices and remain independent.
“Staff were kind and caring in their support.” from the report
Good staff support and training
Staff had an induction, relevant training and support from managers. They said they felt valued and able to ask for help.
“Staff told us they felt supported and valued.” from the report
Positive new leadership
People, relatives and staff described the new registered manager as bringing a calmer atmosphere and positive improvements.
“The atmosphere is lovely, it's very calm and settled now. It's definitely improved.” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with health professionals to support people's needs, including referrals and healthcare appointments.
“The registered manager had developed positive partnership working with other health professionals in order to develop people's care.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff files did not contain a complete employment history. The registered manager said this had been corrected after the inspection.
“However, some applicants did not have a full employment history documented.” from the report
Risk information was not easy to find
needs fixingRisk assessments were in place, but some information was not easily accessible to staff while records were being moved to an electronic system. The manager said it had since been transferred.
“Information relating to these risks was not always easily accessible for staff.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans did not always clearly explain people's needs, preferences or how to support them when upset. They did not always show how people had been involved.
“People's care plans did not always contain clear guidance about their needs or preferences and information was difficult to find.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingRelatives said they were not always kept informed about changes and that concerns were not always answered promptly. The home was introducing improvements, including a regular newsletter.
“Relatives told us there was a lack of communication from the provider and when concerns were raised these were not always addressed promptly.” from the report
Activities and relationships
minorSome relatives felt people were not always encouraged to try different activities. Care plans did not always explain what mattered to people or how to support relationships.
“Relatives told us they did not always feel people were given enough encouragement to try different activities.” from the report
- 01How will you involve my relative and our family in writing and reviewing the care plan?
- 02How do you record and explain what helps my relative when they are upset or need support?
- 03How will you keep relatives informed about changes to management, staffing or the service?
- 04What is the process for raising a concern, and how quickly will we receive a response?
- 05How will you make sure my relative is encouraged to take part in activities and maintain important relationships?
This inspection covered all five key questions and included infection prevention and control checks; the previous overall rating was Good, but Responsive had fallen from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some care paperwork still being organised.
Inspectors visited on 8 and 12 March 2018. They observed care, spoke with people and staff, looked around the home, and reviewed care records, medicines, staffing, complaints, accidents, training and quality checks.
They found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines support and risk assessments for people's individual needs. Staff understood safeguarding, consent and people's health needs. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, keep relationships and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was rated Good overall, which was unchanged from the previous inspection on 28 October 2016.
Enough staff
Inspectors found a good staff presence and said staffing was arranged around people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised communication
Communication profiles helped staff understand how each person communicated. Inspectors saw staff respond sensitively and give people time and choices.
“People's care records included communication profiles that recorded their specific methods of communicating with staff and others.” from the report
Independence and activities
People were supported to do tasks for themselves and to take part in activities such as work, clubs, gardening, cooking and community outings.
“People were supported to partake in activities that met their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines records included key information such as photographs and allergies. Staff were trained and assessed as competent.
“MAR records confirmed people received their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.” from the report
Regular monitoring
The provider carried out regular checks on areas including medicines, fire safety, incidents, care files and the environment.
“The registered provider recognised the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of the service.” from the report
Care paperwork was not always easy to find
needs fixingSome paperwork in the care plans was a little disorganised. The manager said this was being addressed while some plans were reviewed.
“some of the paperwork in some of the care plans we reviewed were noted to be a little disorganised which meant information was hard to find.” from the report
Staff meetings and first aid updates
needs fixingA January 2018 provider quality report recommended that staff meetings be held more regularly and that staff update their first aid training. The manager said these actions were in progress.
“The report recommended staff meetings should be scheduled and held more regularly and staff should update their first aid training.” from the report
- 01How have you reorganised the care plans so staff can find important information quickly?
- 02How often are staff meetings now held, and how are actions from those meetings recorded?
- 03Has all staff first aid training been updated since the January 2018 quality report?
- 04How will you support my relative's preferred activities, friendships, work or community involvement?
- 05How will you make sure my relative's communication profile and choices are kept up to date?
This planned inspection looked at all five CQC questions and the overall rating, and was carried out over two days alongside an inspection of a sister service in the same grounds. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 June 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 Little Paddocks
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 July 2012.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.