CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mistley Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and medicines and recruitment were managed safely. Inspectors found three unsafe walking frames and some risk assessments that lacked important detail, but the frames were repaired immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health needs were supported and staff had relevant training. Some refresher training was still needed, and some fluid records were incomplete.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and respectful. Staff supported independence and involved people and relatives in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's routines, preferences and needs, and the home offered activities and support with complaints. Diabetes care plans did not always give enough guidance, and views about activities were mixed.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The management team was involved and there was a positive culture, but some required notifications had not been sent to the CQC. Systems for staffing levels and recording action after feedback also needed improvement.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Mistley Manor is rated Good overall, but inspectors found improvements were needed in how the home was led.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 28 November 2018. They spoke with 12 people living in the home, eight relatives and 17 staff. They also checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective, caring and responsive. People and relatives were mostly positive about the care. Inspectors found kind staff, enough staff in most situations, good healthcare support, activities and care that respected people's choices and dignity.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Some events, including authorised deprivation of liberty safeguards, had not been notified to the CQC. Inspectors also wanted better systems for maintaining staffing levels and recording actions taken after feedback. The overall rating stayed Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were consistently positive about staff. Inspectors saw that staff knew people well and supported them with dignity, compassion and respect.
“People consistently told us that staff were kind and caring.” from the report
People's choices
People were encouraged to make decisions and remain as independent as possible. Relatives were involved in care planning where appropriate.
“People were encouraged to make decisions for themselves and there was a strong emphasis on involving people as much as possible.” from the report
Health support
The home worked with GPs and other professionals, kept records of healthcare visits and supported people with exercise and falls prevention.
“People were supported to maintain good health and were referred to appropriate health professionals as required.” from the report
Activities and community links
There was a range of activities, including gardening, fitness, trips and community events. The home also had links with schools and a local dementia club.
“There were strong school connections and people took part in a local dementia club.” from the report
Complaints handled
People knew how to complain, and inspectors found that complaints had been investigated and acted on when needed.
“Complaints which had been received, had been investigated thoroughly and where required, action taken to prevent re-occurrence.” from the report
Unsafe walking frames
seriousThree walking frames had worn rubber feet. One had exposed metal, creating a risk of slipping or falling. The feet were replaced during the inspection.
“The ferrules on one frame had worn through to expose the metal which placed the person at risk of slipping/falling.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
needs fixingSome moving and handling risk assessments did not state the sling size needed when a person used a hoist.
“Where people needed the use of a hoist, the moving and handling assessments did not provide information on the size of sling that each person required.” from the report
Care records needed more detail
needs fixingDiabetes care plans did not always explain people's normal blood sugar range or when staff should act. One medication change was also not reflected in a care plan.
“There were not specific care plans in place for people with diabetes to provide guidance to staff on how to manage this effectively.” from the report
Staff training and staffing systems
needs fixingSome staff needed refresher training, including safeguarding training. Managers also needed stronger systems to maintain and regularly review staffing levels.
“The training matrix showed that some staff needed refresher training in subjects such as safeguarding.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure all walking aids and other equipment are checked properly?
- 02How do you now check staffing levels, especially at night, and what happens if there are not enough staff?
- 03Have all staff completed the refresher training identified in the report, including safeguarding training?
- 04How are diabetes care plans and fluid records checked for completeness and accuracy?
- 05How do you record and report action taken after residents or relatives make suggestions or raise concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with checks of people's experiences, care and medicines records, recruitment, training and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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 Mistley Manor
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 December 2014.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums 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.