CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mason House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing was sufficient, medicines were managed safely, and the environment and equipment were well maintained, but one nutritional safety plan needed review.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained, supported and described as competent. People's health needs were assessed, healthcare professionals were involved when needed, and people were supported with food, drink and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported privacy, independence, communication and access to advocacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were offered choices and meaningful activities. Inspectors said responses to distress and goals supporting independence needed to be recorded more clearly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was described as open, friendly and well run. Managers carried out regular checks, listened to feedback and used audits to identify and monitor improvements.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Bracken Villa was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some care records needing clearer updates.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 22 January 2019. One inspector spoke with people, managers and staff, observed the home and dining experience, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and happy. Inspectors saw staff supporting people with kindness, dignity and respect, while promoting choice, independence and access to the community.
The inspectors found two areas where records needed improvement. One nutritional safety plan needed updating, and plans needed clearer instructions for responding when people became distressed. The service remained Good overall and had been rated Good at the previous inspection in July 2016.
Kind and respectful support
People said staff listened to them and treated them well. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and supporting people in a calm, positive atmosphere.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs and support activities in the community. Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely.
“Medicines were safely received, stored, administered and destroyed.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Their knowledge and practical skills were checked.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled, and carried out their roles effectively.” from the report
Strong management checks
Managers used audits, feedback and incident reviews to look for improvements. The report describes the home as open, friendly and well run.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led.” from the report
Nutritional safety plan needed updating
needs fixingOne person's risk assessment and support plan did not clearly record that healthcare advice was not always being followed because of the person's choice. Managers acted straight away to record this.
“We found one risk assessment and plan relating to the risks around one person's nutritional safety that needed review.” from the report
Some support plans lacked detail
needs fixingPlans needed clearer instructions for staff about what to do when people became distressed. The home also needed clearer goals showing how activities supported people's independence.
“Support plans were detailed but would benefit from escalation responses for staff when people became distressed being more clearly recorded.” from the report
- 01How have you updated the nutritional safety plan identified by inspectors?
- 02How do you record what staff should do when a person becomes distressed?
- 03How are each person's independence goals recorded and reviewed?
- 04How are people and their families involved in planning and reviewing care?
- 05How do managers check that improvements identified through audits have worked?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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.
Every inspection of Mason House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 September 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.