CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Marsh House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, staff were safely recruited, staffing levels met people's needs and medicines were given as prescribed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and competency checks. People received support with food, drink, healthcare, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People were supported to take part in activities, use local services and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider had oversight of the service, used checks and audits, and supported a caring culture. Survey results had not yet been shared with people or relatives.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Marsh House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with one improvement needed in sharing survey results.
This was an unannounced inspection on 01 April 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The inspectors found that all five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, access activities and receive suitable healthcare and medicines.
The home had systems for managing risks, safeguarding, complaints and learning from incidents. One improvement was identified: the results of a survey had not yet been shared with people or relatives to explain what action would follow.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 02 November 2016.
Safe care and medicines
Risks were assessed and managed, staff responded quickly and medicines systems were organised. Inspectors found that people received medicines as prescribed.
“People received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and professionals described staff as caring. Staff knew people's histories and supported dignity, choice and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff received an induction, relevant training and competency checks. The report found staff were able to support people's individual needs.
“Staff were competent and had the training required to support people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are survey results now shared with people and relatives, and what actions were taken in response?
- 02How would you support my relative to keep or build independence in daily tasks and community activities?
- 03How do you record and review any medicines given only when needed, including medicines for behaviour?
- 04How would you support my relative's particular health, eating, drinking and communication needs?
- 05How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs or wishes change?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the premises and care provided, and assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 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, November 2016
Marsh House was rated Good in every area; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some staffing and monitoring improvements still planned.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 August 2016. One inspector reviewed notifications, care records, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files and service management records. They spoke with four people, two relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and observed care.
The home supported up to six people with a learning disability or mental health illness. Four people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments and appropriate recruitment checks.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences well, involved them in decisions and worked closely with healthcare professionals. Care plans were personal and activities supported people's independence and wellbeing.
The overall rating was Good, as were the ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report also noted that staff sometimes had to cover long shifts and that some quality monitoring was not formally recorded, although improvements were being planned.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected each person's needs, preferences and goals. Staff knew people's routines, likes and dislikes and reviewed care plans with them each month.
“Care plans were person centred and reflected the care and support that each person required and preferred to meet their assessed needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff communicate calmly and warmly. People were supported to make choices and maintain their privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were consistently treated with kindness, dignity, respect and understanding.” from the report
Good professional support
The home worked closely with a range of healthcare professionals. Staff used advice to change care and develop practical ways to support people.
“People were supported by a staff team who worked closely with a wide range of healthcare professionals to ensure a proactive and holistic approach to all aspects of their care.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities, use the community, develop life skills and work towards greater independence.
“Staff promoted people's independence by being aware of their capabilities and encouraged people to do things for themselves, giving support where needed.” from the report
People's views acted on
People, relatives and professionals were asked for feedback. Inspectors found examples where suggestions led to changes and activities being arranged.
“This showed that people were empowered to voice their opinions and could be confident that they would be listened to and appropriate actions would be taken to improve the service.” from the report
Long shifts were being addressed
needs fixingOne staff member said they were sometimes pressured to cover shifts and work long hours. The manager said shift patterns were being restructured.
“However, one staff member said that they did feel that they were sometimes, "Pushed," to cover shifts and had to work long hours.” from the report
Quality checks were not always recorded
needs fixingThe manager monitored the service but did not always keep formal records to show this. A more structured monitoring system was planned.
“They continually monitored and reviewed all aspects of the service provision; however this was not always formally recorded to evidence that this was taking place.” from the report
Care plans were not always fully read
minorA relative had previously reported that a care plan was not always fully read. The report says this happened only a few times, involved minor issues and was quickly corrected.
“This only occurred a few times, they were minor issues and these were quickly rectified.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to shift patterns after the inspection, and how do you make sure there are enough staff for one-to-one support and community trips?
- 02How do you now record quality checks, audits and actions for improvement?
- 03How do you make sure every staff member reads and follows each person's current care plan?
- 04How would you support my relative's specific health needs, risks, communication needs and preferences?
- 05How are people and their families involved in reviewing care plans and decisions about independence or restrictions?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, with observations, interviews and record checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 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 Marsh House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 November 2014.
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.