CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Market Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting and admissions. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, safe visiting arrangements and plans for COVID-19 staffing pressures.
This was a targeted inspection on 16 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.
The home supported two adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found systems for safe visits, enough personal protective equipment, staff training, regular testing and vaccination records for staff and visiting professionals.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. Cleaning, hygiene, social distancing, admissions and the infection control policy were all checked.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Family visiting
The home had arrangements to support people to see and speak to relatives safely and in line with their preferences and government guidance.
“The service had systems in place for safe visiting to allow people to see and speak to their relatives.” from the report
PPE and staff training
There was enough personal protective equipment, with designated areas for putting it on and taking it off. Staff had training in its use.
“The service had sufficient stock of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) which was allocated in areas for donning and doffing (put on and take off).” from the report
Testing and vaccination records
The home took part in regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents. It also kept vaccination information for staff and visiting professionals.
“The service participated in the COVID-19 regular testing programme for staff and people.” from the report
Cleaning and infection controls
A cleaning schedule covered regular touchpoint surfaces. The provider had reviewed and updated its COVID-19 systems and policies.
“A cleaning schedule was followed to ensure effective measures to reduce infection risks, including tasks such as cleaning of any regular touchpoint surfaces.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are family visits arranged now, and how are the person's preferences taken into account?
- 02How do you make sure there is enough PPE and that staff remain trained to use it safely?
- 03What COVID-19 testing arrangements are currently used for residents, staff and visitors?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 05How often is the infection prevention and control policy reviewed and updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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, November 2018
Market Place is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with no serious risks or concerns.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 22 October 2018. It was announced 48 hours in advance. The inspector spoke with staff, the manager, people using the home, a relative and health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, medicines, complaints and management records.
The home supports two adults with learning disabilities in two flats. Inspectors found that people felt safe and that there were enough staff. Medicines, recruitment, risk assessments and the premises were managed safely. Staff were trained, supported people's health and respected their choices, privacy and dignity.
Care plans were personal and focused on independence, goals and daily preferences. People had support to take part in activities, education, work and community life. The home had effective checks on quality and complaints were investigated and resolved. All five areas were rated Good, the same as at the previous inspection.
Promoting independence
Risk assessments allowed people to do activities in the home and community while managing identified risks. One person was supported to take responsibility for their own medicines.
“Care plans contained risk assessments for keeping people safe whilst also maximising their independence when at the premises and when accessing the local community.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's goals, routines, preferences and personal care needs. Staff knew people well and adapted their support.
“Care plans were person centred and included information about what was important to people, their goals and things they were good at.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and professionals described staff as caring and positive. Staff respected people's privacy and their right to make choices.
“People using the service said staff were kind and caring and that staff respected their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in activities based on their preferences, including work, education, trips, clubs and meeting friends.
“People had a wide and varied social life based on their preferences.” from the report
Good management checks
The home carried out regular audits and sought feedback from people, families and staff. Staff spoke positively about the manager.
“There were robust quality assurance processes in place.” from the report
Feedback was not location-specific
minorThe provider used annual surveys across its services, but the analysis did not show feedback specifically about this home. The small size of the home meant people could also give feedback directly to staff and the manager.
“The provider undertook annual surveys across all of their services although the analysis of this was not location specific.” from the report
- 01How will you assess and support my relative's independence while managing their particular risks?
- 02How will you support my relative to manage or take their medicines, if they want to do this themselves?
- 03How will my relative's personal goals, routines and preferences be recorded and reviewed?
- 04What activities, education, work or community opportunities could be offered based on my relative's interests?
- 05How can my relative and our family give feedback or make a complaint directly to the home?
This was a comprehensive inspection of all five quality areas, and all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 November 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 Market Place
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.