CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Matthews Neurorehab Unit
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some care records contained unclear or contradictory information and gaps, including instructions about turning, staffing support and safety checks. Inspectors also found issues with pressure mattress settings, oxygen signage and date-expired medical equipment.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a caring, person-centred culture and approachable management. Audits covered the service, although some were being reviewed and improved.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Matthews Neurorehab Unit is rated Good overall, but inspectors found unclear care records and other safety shortfalls.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 19 August 2020. Inspectors reviewed information about the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and sampled eight people's care and nursing records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe. Some care records had gaps, unclear instructions and contradictions. This created a risk that people could receive unsafe or inconsistent support. Inspectors also found issues with oxygen signage, medical equipment and pressure mattress settings.
The home was rated Good for Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines administration, clean premises and a caring culture. The overall rating stayed Good because the other three questions were not inspected at this visit and their previous ratings were used.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough care and nursing staff to meet people's needs. People and relatives said staff responded when help was needed.
“The service was well-staffed with enough care and nursing staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Caring culture
People and relatives described care as kind, personalised and respectful. Staff supported people from different cultural backgrounds and took account of their preferences.
“The service had a caring and positive culture.” from the report
Clean and hygienic
The areas inspectors saw were clean and tidy. Staff had infection prevention training and access to the required protective equipment.
“Area of the premises we saw were cleaned to a good standard and tidy.” from the report
Approachable management
People and relatives said the manager listened to concerns and acted on them. The home had regular audits and was improving its care plan checks.
“The registered manager listened to people, relatives and staff and addressed any concerns they might have.” from the report
Unclear care records
seriousSome records gave contradictory or incomplete instructions about turning, staffing support and safety checks. Inspectors said this could lead to unsafe or inconsistent support.
“Some people's care records needed improvement as they contained unclear and contradictory information and gaps.” from the report
Equipment and oxygen safety
needs fixingTwo pressure mattresses had settings that did not match the recorded weights. Oxygen stored in a bedroom was not signposted, and date-expired medical equipment was found.
“A person stored oxygen in their room but there was no sign on the door to indicate this which could pose a risk in the event of a fire” from the report
Safeguarding investigation ongoing
seriousA safeguarding investigation by the local authority and other agencies was still underway when the report was written. Its outcome was not included in this report.
“At the time of our inspection the local authority and other agencies were carrying out a safeguarding investigation into care at the service.” from the report
- 01How have you corrected the unclear and contradictory care plans, including the instructions about turning and the number of staff needed?
- 02How do you now check that safety checks and other care records are completed without gaps?
- 03Have the pressure mattress settings, oxygen signage and date-expired medical equipment issues all been corrected?
- 04What was the outcome of the safeguarding investigation mentioned in the report?
- 05How will you show us that the new care plan audit is working?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 September 2020 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, March 2020
Matthews Neurorehab Unit was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out over four days. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and management records.
All five areas were rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines management. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and activities, and the home was clean.
People and relatives praised the home. Inspectors saw kind and respectful care, and found that staff understood people's needs, preferences and communication methods. The home was also found to be responsive, including helping people regain independence and access services.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with multiple breaches of regulations. The provider had made improvements, and inspectors found that it was no longer in breach of those regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People described feeling safe and well cared for. Inspectors saw staff who knew people well and treated them with kindness, respect and attention.
“Our observations showed staff were kind, caring, friendly and attentive.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed, and staff received training and support for their roles.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised rehabilitation
Staff adapted support to people's goals and preferences. The report describes people regaining independence and accessing specialist treatment closer to home.
“The person had regained their independence through using this newly available technology.” from the report
Communication support
The home identified communication needs and used different formats and assistive technology. This helped people who might otherwise have been unable to communicate.
“This allowed people to communicate who otherwise would be unable and maintain relationships.” from the report
Improved management
Quality checks, staff meetings and feedback from people were used to monitor and improve the service. The earlier breaches had been addressed.
“Enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you set and review my relative's rehabilitation goals, and how will you show whether they are making progress?
- 02What communication methods or assistive technology would you use if my relative could not communicate easily?
- 03How will you review my relative's risks, care plan and medicines after they move in?
- 04How would you support my relative to maintain relationships with family and take part in activities?
- 05How do you use complaints, incidents and feedback from residents and relatives to make changes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; it was planned because the previous rating was Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 2020 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 Matthews Neurorehab Unit
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with 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.