CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at May Morning
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good overall, but Effective Requires Improvement because most staff had not received a yearly appraisal.
The CQC made an unannounced inspection visit on 12 September 2018. It looked at all five areas of care and spoke with people, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. It also checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training, safety records, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported seven people who had learning disabilities, autism and some physical disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices, stay active and take part in community activities. Care plans were detailed and reflected people's communication needs, preferences and routines.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement because most staff had not received an annual appraisal. The home had improved since the previous inspection, including its safety checks, complaints process and quality monitoring.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's care and activity needs. Staffing could be increased when someone needed extra support or wanted to go out.
“There were enough staff to support people's day to day care and activity needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's routines, communication, preferences, emotions and support needs. Staff were observed using this information in practice.
“The care plans were person centred, they provided clear guidance to staff about how people should be supported” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People appeared relaxed and happy with staff. Staff respected privacy and dignity and encouraged people to develop independence in everyday tasks.
“Staff were respectful of people's dignity. Support was provided discreetly to people” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to choose from a varied range of activities, including shopping, meals out, swimming, cinema trips and days out.
“People were encouraged to participate in a full and varied range of activities in the community” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had improved its safety checks, complaints process and quality audits since the previous inspection. The rating display and quality monitoring arrangements were in place.
“Improvements had been made to the completion of records of quality audits and checks.” from the report
Annual staff appraisals
needs fixingMost staff had not received a yearly appraisal. This meant they had not had a formal opportunity to reflect on their work or identify development and support needs for the year ahead.
“However, most staff had not received a yearly appraisal.” from the report
End of life wishes
needs fixingSome people's end of life wishes had not been recorded. The manager agreed to discuss and clarify these wishes with relatives where they were not known.
“Some people but not all had end of life wishes recorded.” from the report
Bathroom window privacy
minorA first-floor bathroom window needed new film to obscure the view. Temporary covering was being used while this was added to the maintenance plan.
“A first-floor bathroom window needed new film to obscure the view in and out of the bathroom.” from the report
Secure outdoor space
minorThere was not yet a secure garden space that everyone could use without staff supervision. Plans were underway to develop one.
“At present there was not a secure garden space for people to use without staff supervision.” from the report
- 01How many staff have now completed their yearly appraisal, and how are appraisal dates being tracked?
- 02Have all residents' end of life wishes now been discussed and recorded where appropriate?
- 03Has the bathroom window privacy film been replaced?
- 04Has the planned secure garden space been completed, and how can residents use it?
- 05How are residents supported to raise complaints if they cannot communicate dissatisfaction verbally?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five CQC areas, including the care, accommodation, staffing, medicines, records and quality systems examined during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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.
What inspectors found, August 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but safety checks, complaints and quality monitoring were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced inspection on 31 May 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, rotas, safety records, complaints and audits.
The home supported up to eight people with learning disabilities, autism and some mental health needs. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments, good health support and respectful care. People had detailed care plans and were supported with activities, independence and family links.
However, some water temperature, food, fire, cleaning and other safety checks were missing or overdue. The complaints procedure was not available in a format most people could understand. Quality monitoring had improved but was not yet consistent. The overall rating and the ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were rated Good.
Kind and respectful support
Staff understood people's communication styles and responded patiently. Inspectors saw people relaxed and able to spend their time as they chose.
“Staff were patient and respectful towards people and were mindful of people's privacy and dignity in their everyday support.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, communication, health and personal history. Staff used this information in everyday support.
“People had individualised care plans that contained up to date information about their needs and support preferences; staff referred to them to inform their practice” from the report
Improved medicines management
Medicines were stored safely. Individual guidance had been introduced for medicines given only when needed.
“Medicines were kept safely and storage temperatures monitored.” from the report
Improvements since the previous inspection
The provider had addressed earlier problems with recruitment records, staff training, risk assessments, epilepsy guidance and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications.
“The majority of breaches of regulation had been addressed.” from the report
Incomplete safety checks
seriousWater temperature records had gaps, and other scheduled checks were overdue or incomplete. This meant the home did not always have reliable evidence that safety risks were being monitored.
“Water temperature check records not been completed for the previous two weeks prior to inspection and staff could not confirm if these had been checked.” from the report
Complaints were not accessible
seriousA written complaints process was displayed, but most people could not read it. The home had also not made complaints on behalf of people who could not do so themselves.
“The failure to provide an accessible version of the complaints procedure for people in the service is a continued breach of Regulation 16 of the HSCA 2008 (RA) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Quality monitoring was inconsistent
seriousAudits and checks had improved but were not always completed or sustained. The home also could not clearly show how survey feedback led to changes.
“There remains a failure to ensure that some of the quality checks and audits in place to maintain people's safety are completed consistently to provide an accurate oversight of the service quality and safety.” from the report
Emergency arrangements
needs fixingAll staff had attended one fire drill, but further drills were still planned. Not all staff had read the emergency arrangements for when people could not return to the building.
“The majority of staff had been reminded of the procedure to follow in the event of people not being able to return to the building as a result of an emergency.” from the report
- 01How do you now make the complaints procedure accessible to each person living here?
- 02How are water temperatures, food and fridge temperatures, window restrictors and other safety checks recorded and followed up?
- 03What action is taken when a scheduled safety check is missed?
- 04How do you show that people's and relatives' feedback leads to changes in the home?
- 05How will management cover the home while the registered manager also oversees the adjacent service?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, staffing, medicines, safety and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 2017 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 May Morning
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
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 25 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.