CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Maurice Edelman House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe recruitment, effective risk plans and safe medicines management. However, two incidents had not been reported to CQC as required.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and knowledge needed to support people. The home followed the Mental Capacity Act, provided suitable food and helped people access healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to make choices, maintain relationships, and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's individual needs, routines and preferences. People could choose activities and were supported in ways that matched their communication, cultural and personal needs, although one important care plan detail had not been updated.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, an experienced management team and quality checks. Some duty rotas, accident and incident records, and medicine records needed more detail.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some reporting and record-keeping issues to improve.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 21 May 2018. They spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staff rotas, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported up to 16 people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the visit, 10 people lived there and three people used respite care. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practices, detailed care plans and respectful support.
There were some shortfalls. Two incidents had not been reported to CQC as required. Some records were incomplete, one care plan was out of date, and some radiators did not have protective covers. The manager acted on some of these issues during or after the visit.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. This means inspectors found the service met the expected standards overall. The rating stayed Good from the previous inspection.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff had induction, ongoing training and checks before starting work.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff to keep people safe and meet their individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen to be friendly, patient and considerate. People's privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“People were treated with respect and their independence, privacy and dignity were promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines and communication needs. Staff knew the small details that mattered to each person.
“People's personalised care records provided a clear and detailed overview of the person, their life, preferences and support needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make daily choices, take part in activities and build practical skills for greater independence.
“Staff were supportive and tailored the way they worked to meet each person's needs.” from the report
Good management oversight
There was a registered manager and a clear management structure. Staff said managers were approachable and supportive.
“Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Incidents not reported to CQC
seriousTwo incidents had not been reported to CQC as required. The manager said this was an oversight and gave assurance that the incidents had been managed safely.
“However, there had been two incidents relating to people who used the service that had not been reported to us as required.” from the report
Care plan not updated
needs fixingOne care plan contained important information that had not been updated. The manager updated it immediately after inspectors raised the issue.
“However, we saw some important information in one care plan had not been updated which had the potential to have a negative impact on the person if staff were not aware of it.” from the report
Incomplete records
needs fixingSome records needed more detail, including duty rotas, accident and incident records, and explanations for gaps in medicine records.
“We found during our review of records there were some that needed to be completed in more detail.” from the report
Radiator safety
needs fixingSome radiators did not have protective covers to reduce the risk of burns. They were not being used during the visit, and the manager arranged for them to be counted so covers could be considered.
“We identified radiators within the home that did not have protective covers to protect people from the risk of burns when they were in use.” from the report
- 01Have all radiator covers identified at the inspection now been fitted, and how are environmental burn risks checked?
- 02How do you make sure every incident is reported to CQC and the local safeguarding authority when required?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed, and how do you check that important changes are recorded promptly?
- 04How are gaps or mistakes in medicine records investigated and followed up?
- 05How do current staff rotas show training, staffing levels and cover for people's individual needs?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service, covering all five key questions and the accommodation and care provided; all five ratings were reviewed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 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 Maurice Edelman House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 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 4 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Coventry
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 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.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.