CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Mon Choisy Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks such as falls, pressure damage, medicines and malnutrition were assessed and managed, and staffing levels were sufficient.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, supervision and appraisals. People received support with eating and drinking and were referred to healthcare professionals when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood people's communication needs and supported their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences, likes and dislikes. The home offered activities, supported family visits and dealt with complaints in line with its policy.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had systems to review care quality and make improvements. The manager understood their reporting responsibilities and inspectors found an open and honest culture.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with major improvements since earlier concerns.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 December 2017. Three inspectors and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training, good support with food and healthcare, respectful care and activities for people to join.
At the previous inspection, the home had failed to identify some concerns and had not always reported important events to CQC. This inspection found significant improvements, including better quality checks and appropriate reporting to CQC.
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered according to prescriptions and records showed when they had been given. An electronic recording system had been introduced after earlier medicine incidents, with no further incidents reported.
“Staff administered medicines to people in line with their prescription.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff speaking respectfully, protecting privacy and taking time to reassure people. Relatives and people living at the home were positive about the care.
“Throughout our visit we saw people were treated in a caring and kind way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, past interests and communication needs. Staff knew this information and used it when supporting people.
“People's needs were assessed to ensure they received personalised care.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had introduced regular audits of areas such as medicines, care records, health and safety and the environment. These checks were used to identify and correct shortfalls.
“We saw evidence that arrangements were in place to formally assess, review and monitor the quality of care provided at the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check that medicines are given and recorded correctly for my relative?
- 02How will you assess and update my relative's care plan if their health, mobility or communication needs change?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative, including if they prefer not to join group activities?
- 04How will you support my relative's dietary needs, including any swallowing difficulties or special diet?
- 05How can our family raise a concern, and how will we be kept informed about the response?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, including care, staffing, medicines, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 January 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, January 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medication records, emergency plans and management checks were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 November and 5 December 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care files, staff records, medicines records and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient, food and activities were good, and people were treated with kindness and respect. However, staff did not always follow the home’s process for medicines given when needed. An emergency heating plan was not followed, leaving some people in an unacceptably cold room.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive care were rated Good. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Two regulations were breached because important events were not always reported to CQC and quality checks did not reliably identify problems.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were not rushed and responded promptly when people needed support.
“Throughout the inspection there was a calm atmosphere and staff responded promptly to people who needed support.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen speaking respectfully, protecting people’s privacy and explaining what they were doing. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
“Throughout our visit we saw people were treated in a caring and kind way.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s histories, likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff knew the people they supported and responded to changes in their needs.
“People received personalised care and staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the people they supported.” from the report
Food and activities
People were offered choices of food and drink, including suitable special diets. Activities included games, painting, hairdressing, music therapy, barbecues and days out.
“Where people required special diets, for example, pureed or fortified meals, these were provided by kitchen staff who clearly understood the dietary needs of the people they were catering for.” from the report
Medicines given when needed
seriousStaff did not always follow the home’s procedure for medicines given when needed. Records did not show that people had been assessed each time, or that a medication review had been considered when medicines were used regularly.
“The MAR's did not demonstrate that communication had taken place to ascertain if these people required their 'as and when medication'.” from the report
Emergency heating plan
needs fixingThe lounge was cold because the heating was not working. Portable heaters were brought in after inspectors raised the issue, but the written contingency plan had not been followed when the problem began.
“The impact of this was that people had been left to reside in parts of the home that were unacceptably cold.” from the report
Management notifications
seriousThe registered manager had not always told CQC about reportable events. The report listed seven events, including allegations, welfare concerns and a hospital admission.
“The registered manager had not always notified CQC of reportable events.” from the report
Quality checks
seriousAudits did not always identify gaps in medicine records or missing detail in mental capacity assessments. This meant the management system was not reliably finding problems.
“However, these audits were not always effective and did not identify the concerns we found.” from the report
Mental capacity records
minorThe home had introduced mental capacity assessments and staff understood the principles. However, some assessments did not clearly state which decision a person’s capacity was being assessed for.
“However some of them lacked detail around what decisions people's capacity was being assessed for.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and review medicines that are given when needed?
- 02How do you make sure staff follow the contingency plan if the heating or another essential service fails?
- 03What checks now make sure all reportable events are notified to CQC on time?
- 04How do your audits identify missing medicine records and incomplete mental capacity assessments?
- 05What changes have been made since this inspection, and what evidence can you show that they are working?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and checking progress against concerns found at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 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 Mon Choisy Care Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 June 2015.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.