CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Medihands Healthcare
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by updated risk assessments, emergency evacuation plans and smoking risk plans. Inspectors also found enough staff, robust recruitment checks, safe medicines practice and suitable infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received regular training, supervision and competency checks. The environment had been improved, and people received suitable support with food, religious needs and healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the overall rating used ratings from the previous inspection for key questions that were not inspected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report does not give a current rating for Responsive in the supplied text.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had improved its monitoring, risk reviews, training checks and building audits. Inspectors found a friendly atmosphere and regular opportunities for people and staff to give feedback.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Medihands Healthcare rated Good; inspectors found safer care, improved staff support and major building improvements, with some quality actions not clearly recorded.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 16 January 2023. One inspector spoke with two people, managers and care workers, and reviewed care records, recruitment and training files, medicines records and other management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, updated risk assessments, suitable recruitment checks, regular staff training and a clean environment.
The home had made major improvements since the previous inspection, including new fire doors, flooring, bathroom facilities and a refurbished lounge. People said they felt safe and were happy with the home.
The previous inspection had rated the service Requires Improvement and found breaches relating to risk, premises, staffing and governance. Inspectors found these improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of those regulations. This inspection did not assess Caring or Responsive.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they were happy and felt safe living in the home.
“people using the service were happy and told us they felt safe living there.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including support for community visits and health appointments.
“There were enough staff employed to meet people's needs, including taking them out into the community.” from the report
Safer environment
The home had installed new fire doors, improved flooring and refurbished the lounge and bathrooms.
“The provider had installed new fire doors throughout the home, all with working door release mechanisms.” from the report
Better staff support
Staff had regular supervision, relevant training and competency checks, including checks linked to medicines training.
“Staff received appropriate training and support. This meant they were able to care for people effectively.” from the report
Quality actions were not always clear
needs fixingAn internal quality check did not always clearly identify actions for amber-rated areas or minor improvements. The provider said it would improve this.
“We found that actions for areas that were scored amber and minor areas of improvement were not always clearly identified.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure actions from amber-rated quality checks are clearly recorded and completed?
- 02What checks are now used to keep smoking risks and personal emergency evacuation plans up to date?
- 03How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
- 04What refurbishment work was still ongoing at the inspection, and has it now been completed?
- 05How are people and their families asked for feedback about the care and support provided?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit and the report says ratings for uninspected questions carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 2023 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 2021
Medihands Healthcare was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but safety, premises, staff supervision and management checks needed improvement.
The inspection took place on 21 and 30 September 2021. One inspector visited, spoke with people, relatives, staff, managers and healthcare professionals, and checked care records, staff files and management records.
People said they felt safe and were positive about their care. Inspectors found good care planning, safe medicines support, enough staff, infection control measures, respectful care and support to take part in activities and use the community.
However, some fire risk assessments and evacuation plans were incomplete or out of date. The home also had maintenance and safety problems, including faulty fire door mechanisms, uneven flooring, a loose step and items causing possible trip hazards.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive remained Good. The provider was in breach of four regulations and was asked to take action.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them well. Inspectors saw staff speaking respectfully and supporting people to make their own choices.
“During the inspection we saw staff speaking to people in a respectful manner, asking them what they would like for lunch and supporting them appropriately.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered mental and physical health, medicines, daily living and behaviour risks. They also recorded people's wishes, preferences and cultural needs.
“Support plans included an identified area of support, the intended goal/outcome, and the staff interventions needed to support people.” from the report
Enough staff and safe recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and appropriate recruitment checks, including criminal record checks.
“There were enough staff employed to meet the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Good community involvement
People were supported to take part in activities, education and community life, helping them maintain interests and relationships.
“People were encouraged to access educational resources and other community initiatives.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the home. Managers were described as supportive and approachable.
“There was a pleasant atmosphere in the home, people and staff were comfortable in each other's company.” from the report
Fire safety planning
seriousSome individual fire risk assessments did not say what action should be taken to manage the risks. Some evacuation plans had not been reviewed since 2018 and were not readily available.
“Although PEEPS were in place, some of them had not been reviewed since 2018.” from the report
Building safety and maintenance
seriousInspectors found faulty fire door mechanisms, uneven flooring, a loose step, a damaged light pull chord and stored items that could create safety hazards. The interior also needed updating.
“We identified some health and safety issues relating to the home's physical environment and maintenance in general including, fire safety equipment.” from the report
Irregular staff supervision
seriousStaff did not receive regular formal supervision. Inspectors also found no recorded competency checks to show that staff understood their training, including medicines training.
“Supervision records indicated that staff did not receive regular, formal recorded supervision with their line manager.” from the report
Limited feedback from relatives and professionals
minorThe provider had not recently sent quality questionnaires to relatives or healthcare professionals. Inspectors recommended a more formal way to collect this feedback.
“There were no recent quality assurance feedback questionnaires sent to relatives or to healthcare professionals.” from the report
- 01Have all individual fire risk assessments been completed with clear actions to manage each person's risks?
- 02When were each person's Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans last reviewed, and can staff access them immediately in an emergency?
- 03What repairs have been completed to the fire doors, flooring, loose step and other hazards identified in the report?
- 04How often do staff now receive formal supervision and competency checks, including checks for medicines training?
- 05How do you now make sure your audits identify safety and maintenance problems before an inspection?
This was a thematic review of a service previously rated Good, including infection prevention and control, and it rated all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 November 2021 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 Medihands Healthcare
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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 Kingston upon Thames
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. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“We cannot speak highly enough of the care that Angelique gave, and would recommend her to anyone else needing a live-in carer.”
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.