CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Michaelstowe
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm. Risk assessments and care plans were in place, staffing levels were sufficient, recruitment checks were safe and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report nevertheless records that staff were kind, caring and friendly and knew people and their relatives well.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says no concerns were identified in the other key questions.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found the home was consistently managed. Audits, meetings and a service improvement plan were used to monitor care and identify improvements.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Michaelstowe rated Good; a focused inspection found safe, well-managed care, with some redecoration needed.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 10 and 12 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk plans and safe medicines arrangements. People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for.
Staff were described as kind, caring and friendly. The home was clean, although the main hallway carpet was stained and the laundry room floor needed resealing. One washing machine and one tumble drier were also not working during the inspection.
This was not a full inspection of all five areas. Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected because no concerns had been identified. Their previous ratings were used in the overall Good rating. The overall rating remained Good.
Kind and familiar staff
Staff were seen to be kind and friendly. Inspectors found they knew people and their relatives well.
“Staff were seen to be kind, caring and friendly and it was clear staff knew people and their relatives well.” from the report
Enough staff
There were enough care staff to meet people's needs and spend time with them in conversation and social activities.
“Sufficient numbers of care staff were available to meet people's needs and to spend time with people in conversation and social activities.” from the report
Safe medicines
Only trained and assessed staff administered medicines. Medicines were received, stored and disposed of safely.
“Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Good management checks
The manager used audits, meetings, feedback and a service improvement plan to monitor the quality and safety of care.
“Quality assurance processes, such as audits and resident and staff meetings, ensured the registered manager had the information they required to monitor staff performance as well as the safety and quality of the care provided.” from the report
Some redecoration was needed
minorThe main hallway carpet was stained and the laundry room floor needed resealing. The manager said refurbishment was planned.
“However, some redecoration was required: the main hallway carpet was stained and the laundry room floor required resealing.” from the report
Laundry equipment was not working
minorOne washing machine and one tumble drier were not working on the first inspection day. This caused a small backlog of washing, although it was stored in plastic bags.
“On the first day of the inspection one washing machine and one tumble drier were not working.” from the report
- 01Has the stained main hallway carpet been replaced or cleaned, and has the laundry room floor been resealed?
- 02Are the washing machine and tumble drier now working, and how does the home prevent a backlog of washing?
- 03How are staffing levels checked when people need support with activities or have changing care needs?
- 04How can relatives access the electronic care plans, and how are they involved in reviewing them?
- 05What changes were made after the governance concerns that prompted this focused inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 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, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but some medicine records were out of date.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 and 14 December 2018. Inspectors spoke with 11 people, nine relatives, eight staff and a healthcare professional. They observed daily care, looked around the home and checked care, medicine and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness, received personalised care, had access to healthcare and were supported by trained staff. People were also supported to make choices and communicate in ways that suited them.
There were some minor issues. Medicine records contained outdated information, although the home had started correcting this during the inspection. Some parts of the building needed updating, with work already under way. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection in December 2016 and remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, kindness and understanding. People said their privacy and dignity were respected.
“People were observed to be treated with kindness and compassion by the staff who valued them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, history and communication needs. Staff adapted how they communicated, including using visual prompts.
“People's care records, held on a computerised system, were person-centred and held detailed information on how each person wanted their needs to be met in line with their wishes and preferences.” from the report
Staff training and knowledge
Staff received regular training and supervision. Inspectors found they understood people's needs, including dementia-related risks and communication needs.
“People were supported by a staff team who had received regular and updated training to meet their needs effectively.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to make day-to-day choices and take part in activities. The home offered activity sessions, entertainers and everyday activities.
“People took part in a range of activities and said how much they enjoyed the activity coordinator sessions.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits and other checks to monitor care, accidents, the environment and people's nutrition. Inspectors found clear leadership and governance.
“The provider's governance framework helped monitor the management and leadership of the service, as well as the ongoing quality and safety of the care people were receiving.” from the report
Outdated medicine information
needs fixingSome medicine record sheets did not show current prescribed medicines. The registered manager had begun correcting this by the second day of the inspection.
“However, people's medication record sheet held outdated information on people currently prescribed medicines.” from the report
Parts of the building needed updating
minorInspectors noted that some areas needed updating. Some work had started and further plans were in place.
“Some areas of the service required updating, however some updating was under way and additional plans were in place.” from the report
- 01How have you corrected the outdated medicine information found during the inspection, and how do you check records stay current?
- 02Which areas of the home needed updating, what work has been completed, and what remains planned?
- 03How would you assess and support my relative's communication needs if they could not fully express themselves verbally?
- 04How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and decisions about care?
- 05What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how would you adapt them to their preferences and abilities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; all five ratings remained Good, as at the December 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 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 Michaelstowe
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 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 19 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Plymouth
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.