CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 330a Guildford Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient, recruitment checks were completed, and medicines records were fully completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare appointments and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in daily decisions, supported to maintain relationships and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support and activities were personalised around people's preferences, needs and changing abilities. A complaints policy was in place, although no complaints had been received.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had approachable leadership, supportive staff relationships and regular quality checks. Inspectors noted that some care records still needed updating.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Living Ambitions Limited - 330a Guildford Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records still being updated.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 1 May 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff, managers and relatives. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, risk assessments, complaints records and management checks.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, staff understood their needs, and medicines were managed properly. People were treated with kindness and respect, given choices, and supported to stay independent and keep in touch with relatives.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the service met legal requirements and provided consistently good care at the time of this inspection.
Safe support
Risks were assessed and staff had guidance to support people safely while preserving their independence.
“Risks to people's safety and well-being were assessed and guidance for staff on how to keep people safe was incorporated into support plans.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff comforting people, spending time with them and respecting their privacy and dignity.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised daily life
People helped shape activities, meals and household life. Staff knew their histories, preferences and routines.
“People received personalised support and were enabled to make choices regarding how they spent their time.” from the report
Some care records needed updating
needs fixingAlthough care was described as responsive, inspectors found that records for some people were not fully up to date. A new care planning format was being introduced.
“Although people received responsive care in line with their needs, records for some people required updating.” from the report
End of life plans were still being developed
minorEnd of life planning was in place, but staff were still working to make plans more detailed and personalised. No one was receiving end of life care during the inspection.
“Staff were working to make people's plans more detailed and personalised and families bad been involved in the process.” from the report
- 01Which people's care records needed updating, and has the new care planning format now been completed?
- 02How will you make sure end of life plans remain detailed and personalised as people's needs change?
- 03How will you adapt the building if people's needs change as they get older?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and deciding activities?
- 05What training do staff have for the specific health needs of the person we are considering placing here?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five quality areas rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 June 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, December 2016
Living Ambitions Limited - 330a Guildford Road is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited without notice on 14 November 2016. They spoke with staff, the manager and two relatives. They observed care because most people could not communicate verbally, and reviewed care plans, staff records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home supported five people with learning and physical disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, received their medicines properly and were supported by staff with suitable training. People could choose their food, activities and daily routines.
Care plans described people's communication, preferences, routines and support needs. Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions. The home had systems to monitor quality, and the manager was described as supportive.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The previous inspection had found five legal breaches, but inspectors said the required improvements had been made and those regulations were no longer breached.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, important relationships, hopes and communication methods. Staff were able to describe how each person liked to be supported.
“Care plans were person centred and enabled staff to provide good quality care to people.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed caring and kind interactions. People's privacy, dignity and choices were respected.
“The relationships between staff and people receiving support demonstrated dignity and respect at all times.” from the report
Choice and activities
People chose when to get up, what to eat and which activities to do. Staff supported both planned and spontaneous activities.
“Activities were flexible and based on people's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had regular audits, health and safety checks and action plans. Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered and the running of the home.” from the report
Night-time fire drill
minorFire safety arrangements were in place, but a drill with night staff had not yet been arranged at the time of inspection. Ask whether this was completed.
“A fire drill with night staff was due to be arranged.” from the report
- 01Has the fire drill with night staff now taken place, and what was learned from it?
- 02How will staff support my relative's particular communication method and preferences?
- 03How will you manage my relative's specific health needs, such as epilepsy, diabetes, swallowing or mobility difficulties?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff understand my relative's care plan before providing support?
- 05How will my relative be involved in decisions about meals, activities, holidays and their care?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions; the report also checked whether improvements had been made after the September 2015 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 2016 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 330a Guildford Road
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 July 2015.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.