CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mansion House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed through PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and arrangements for visitors and admissions. The report does not give a formal rating for safety.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Mansion House Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, followed testing and social distancing guidance, and had arrangements to prevent and manage outbreaks. They also found the home visibly clean, well maintained and supported by regular cleaning schedules.
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends through a visitors pod. Staff had infection control training and support from managers. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Family contact
The home had created a visitors pod, which had been well used and helped support people's mental health.
“A visitors pod had been put in place and had been well used.” from the report
Infection control training
Staff had received training in infection prevention and the correct use of PPE.
“Staff employed at the service had received training on infection prevention and the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Clean environment
PPE was available, and inspectors found the home visibly clean and well maintained, with records of regular cleaning.
“PPE was available and accessible. The service was well maintained and visibly clean.” from the report
Testing arrangements
The provider was following government guidance on whole-home testing for people living in the home and staff.
“The provider was following the government guidance on whole home testing for people and staff.” from the report
Approach to be developed
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not say what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control resources did the CQC signpost the home to, and what changes were made afterwards?
- 02How are people and staff tested now, and how are the results managed?
- 03How is PPE made available and how do managers check that staff use it safely?
- 04How often are communal areas and residents' rooms cleaned, and can families see the cleaning records?
- 05How are visits arranged now, and what options are available for keeping in touch with family?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was inspected but not rated and did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 March 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, May 2018
Mansion House Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and said earlier safety and management problems had been improved.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 10 April 2018. Inspectors checked whether the home had acted after a February 2017 inspection found breaches about medicines, quality checks and staff recruitment. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and reviewed care plans, recruitment files, complaints, incidents, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found safer medicines administration, improved recruitment checks and stronger monitoring of the service. They also found enough staff, suitable training, personalised care and support for people's choices, health needs and families.
The report noted one remaining area for improvement. Notice boards and information about menus and activities were not always easy to read because the text and pictures were too small or unclear. The home said it would improve this and had developed a policy about providing information in accessible ways.
Improved medicines safety
The home had reviewed its medicines procedures. Inspectors saw medicines being given safely and found no errors in the records they checked.
“We looked at three people's Medicine Administration Records (MAR) sheets and saw that these were completed correctly with no errors.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring and kind. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy and dignity and respond to people as individuals.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's life histories, routines, preferences and wishes. Staff involved people and relatives in planning and reviewing care.
“The care plans we saw were holistic and person centred.” from the report
Activities and involvement
The home had increased its range of group and one-to-one activities after people asked for more. Inspectors found that many people enjoyed taking part.
“Action had been taken and a range of social and leisure group and individual activities had been developed which people enjoyed.” from the report
Information was not always easy to read
minorNotice boards were cluttered, and menu and activity information did not always use text or pictures large enough to help people understand it. The home said it would take action.
“Details about activities and menu choices did not have large enough text or graphics to help people understand what was being served that day or what activities were going to take place.” from the report
Recruitment remained difficult for the community service
minorThe manager said recruitment was still difficult because of the service's location. The community service was being kept small until more staff could be recruited, although inspectors found staffing was sufficient during the visit.
“They were, even after a year, finding it difficult to recruit for staff due to the geography of the service.” from the report
- 01What checks are now completed to make sure medicines are given safely and recorded without errors?
- 02How often are recruitment files and staff competency checks audited now?
- 03What has changed to make menus and activity information easier for people with visual or communication needs to read?
- 04How many staff are currently supporting the community care service, and has the recruitment difficulty been resolved?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and deciding which activities are provided?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five questions, with particular attention to improvements required after the previous inspection; the home also provided a community personal care service. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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 Mansion House Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Mansion House Residential Home →
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Mansion House Residential Home →
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 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
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.