CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Maranello
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good across all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a minor infection-control issue dealt with during the visit.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with staff, healthcare professionals and relatives. They observed activities and mealtimes and checked care and safety records.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities or autism. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems and good arrangements for managing risks. People were supported to make choices, build independence, follow their interests and stay in contact with family and friends.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Staff were described as kind and respectful. The home used checks, incident reviews and feedback to improve care. Inspectors did identify that some equipment for transporting contaminated laundry was not being used, but the manager acted immediately.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to respond promptly and spend time with people. Recruitment and medicine arrangements were found to be safe.
“There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe.” from the report
Specialist support
Staff received comprehensive training for people's high support needs, with supervision and reflection after difficult incidents.
“Staff received comprehensive and specialist training to meet these needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, learn new skills and take part in cooking, laundry, work and hobbies.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff promoted dignity, privacy and personal choice.
“We saw caring interactions between care staff and people in the home.” from the report
Strong leadership
The home had clear leadership and staff felt supported. Quality checks and reviews were used to improve care.
“The registered manager had effective oversight of what was happening in the service.” from the report
Contaminated laundry equipment
needs fixingSome equipment provided to transport contaminated laundry safely was not being used. The manager took immediate action after inspectors raised this.
“However, we did note that staff had not used some equipment that had been provided to transport contaminated laundry safely.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was registered for up to 11 people and was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design and how the home was used reduced any negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What equipment is now used every time contaminated laundry is transported, and how is this checked?
- 02How will you make sure there are enough staff to support my relative safely when they go out into the community?
- 03What specialist training will staff receive for my relative's health needs, communication needs or periods of distress?
- 04How will my relative be supported to make choices, develop independence and take part in hobbies or work?
- 05How does the home make sure its larger size does not affect people's privacy, choice or community involvement?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided; seven people were using the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 1 March 2017. The home supports up to nine people with learning disabilities. Seven people were living there at the time. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked records, medicines, staffing, training, recruitment, the building and quality checks.
Inspectors found the home safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were supported by staff who understood their needs, including behaviour, communication and health needs. The building was clean and maintained. Medicines were managed safely. People were supported to make choices, go into the community, eat food they liked and maintain their health.
The previous inspection in February 2016 rated the home Requires Improvement and found breaches linked to premises and staff skills. This inspection found the required improvements had been made. All five areas were rated Good. This means the inspectors found the service met the relevant standards at the time of this inspection.
Improvements since 2016
The home had acted on the problems found at the previous inspection. Environmental risks were better managed and repairs had been completed.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Safe environment
The building was clean and well maintained. Inspectors found appropriate checks, infection control systems and safe storage of hazardous items.
“Environmental risks were now much better managed since the last inspection and appropriate records were kept.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and responded supportively when people were anxious or distressed. Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions.
“Interactions between people and staff were warm and supportive. Staff were kind and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Support reflected people's communication, mobility, behaviour, health needs, preferences and interests. People were helped to take part in activities and community life.
“People's individual needs were met which included their mobility, communication, behavioural and physical healthcare needs.” from the report
Involvement in care reviews
minorInspectors could not establish whether people were involved in ongoing reviews of their care plans. Relatives had been involved.
“Although it was unclear if people were involved in the on-going reviews of their care plans, we found that their relatives had been involved in this process.” from the report
Complaints information
minorThe complaints procedure was not displayed publicly because of the home's furnishings and people's needs. The manager said it would be provided on request.
“a copy of the provider's complaints procedure was not publicly available.” from the report
Privacy arrangement
minorOne person's bedroom did not have a door. Staff protected the person's privacy as far as possible, and the manager said they would consider fitting a detachable screen.
“the registered manager stated they would look at ensuring a screen which could easily detach from the frame of the door be put up” from the report
- 01How are people involved in ongoing reviews of their care plans, including people who communicate without speech?
- 02Has the planned detachable privacy screen been fitted, and how is the person's privacy protected when they are in or away from their room?
- 03How can residents and relatives see or request the complaints procedure?
- 04How do you make sure the improvements to the building, equipment and staff training found at this inspection are maintained?
- 05How are people's individual goals, activities and community access reviewed and updated?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and checking improvements required after the February 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 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 Maranello
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 September 2011.
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.