CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 5 Everton Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Mrs A and Mr R Brooks - 5 Everton Road was Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but problems with medicines, recruitment and quality checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 and 5 May 2023. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
People were described as receiving kind, personalised care. Staff supported independence, activities, family relationships and access to the local community. The home had a consistent staff team who knew people well, and people were supported to make choices.
However, medicines were not always managed safely. Recruitment checks and records were incomplete, and quality checks had not found these problems. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Responsive was rated Good. The report says there was an increased risk that people could be harmed, although inspectors found no evidence that anyone had been harmed by the medicines issues.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People were involved in planning their care and were supported to make their own decisions.
“People received person centred care which met their needs. People were empowered to make their own choices and decisions.” from the report
Consistent staff team
The home had a longstanding team, with no agency staff used. Relatives and professionals said staff knew people well and provided continuity of care.
“The service had a longstanding, consistent staff team who knew people well. No agency staff were used.” from the report
Kind and positive culture
Inspectors heard positive feedback about the caring atmosphere and relationships between staff and people. Staff were described as approachable and supportive.
“There was a happy, relaxed and caring atmosphere at the service.” from the report
Clean environment and infection control
The houses were described as clean, tidy and well maintained. Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, visitor arrangements and the safe use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Medicines records and storage
seriousMedicine lists were not always up to date, preferences were not recorded and protocols for as-required medicines were missing. Some medicines were not stored securely, and there were no medicine audits.
“Care plans or medicine administration records (MAR) did not always give an up to date list of people's current prescribed medicines.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome staff files did not show a full employment history or recorded interview. References were not always obtained in line with the provider's policy and legislation.
“Recruitment process had not always been fully followed to ensure new employees were recruited safely.” from the report
Quality monitoring
seriousThe home's checks had not identified the problems with medicines and recruitment. Care-plan and risk-assessment audits were not regular or complete enough to ensure updates were made when needed.
“Quality assurance systems were in place but did not cover all areas in order to fully monitor and assess the quality of care.” from the report
Risk assessments not always updated
needs fixingRisk assessments were in place and people were involved in reviewing them, but they were not always fully updated when required.
“Whilst risk assessments were amended, they had not always been fully updated when required.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to keep medicines in people's rooms secure?
- 02Are current medicine lists, people's preferences and as-required medicine protocols now complete for every person?
- 03How are medicine audits and storage-temperature checks being completed and reviewed?
- 04How do you now check full employment histories, interviews and references before staff start work?
- 05How often are care plans and risk assessments audited, and how do you make sure updates are completed promptly?
This inspection rated Safe, Responsive and Well-led; the report says ratings for key questions not inspected were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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 2018
Mrs A and Mr R Brooks - 5 Everton Road was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some medicines and safety arrangements needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 and 23 October 2018. One adult social care inspector, one medicines inspector and one expert by experience spoke with 14 people, four relatives and nine staff. They also checked care files, medicines records, recruitment records, training records and quality checks.
The home provided residential care across four nearby shared houses for up to 15 adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, detailed care plans, good support with health and activities, and kind relationships. People were encouraged to make choices, stay independent and keep in contact with family and friends.
There were some problems with medicines being stored where people could access them, and staff DBS checks had not been renewed. The provider bought lockable boxes during the inspection and said medicines training and policies would be reviewed. The overall rating remained Good, as did all five areas inspected.
Kind relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance and treating people with affection and respect.
“Staff treated people with kindness respect and compassion.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to make choices and do more for themselves, including travelling to work and taking part in household tasks.
“People were fully encouraged to keep their independence and access their community when they wanted to.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans included people's routines, likes, dislikes and important relationships. Staff showed a very good knowledge of the people they supported.
“The support plans were set out clearly and were easy to read.” from the report
Health and activities
People were supported with a balanced diet, health checks and appointments with health professionals. They also chose activities, work and social opportunities.
“People were supported to maintain good health and wellbeing.” from the report
Open leadership
The providers were visible, approachable and involved in the home. Staff, people and families could give their views through surveys and regular discussions.
“The leadership was visible and accessible.” from the report
Medicines storage
seriousIn one house, people could access medicines belonging to themselves and others. Insulin was also stored in a refrigerator that everyone could access. Lockable boxes were bought during the inspection, but families should check that this remains effective.
“We did find in one house three people's medicines were kept in a wooden locked cupboard in the kitchen.” from the report
Access to the home
seriousOne person opened the door to inspectors without checking who they were. This created a risk of unauthorised people entering the home, and the provider said this would be discussed at a residents meeting.
“Which meant people were at risk of unauthorised people accessing the home.” from the report
DBS checks
needs fixingStaff had suitable checks before employment, but these had not been renewed since they started working at the home. The registered manager said the policy and checks would be reviewed.
“Although at the time of the inspection staff had not had their DBS checks renewed since they had started working at 5 Everton Road.” from the report
Staff supervision
minorStaff did not receive regular formal one-to-one supervision. They did have annual appraisals and regular team meetings.
“Staff did not have regular formal one to one supervision.” from the report
- 01How are each person's medicines and backup medicines now stored, including insulin in the refrigerator?
- 02How do you make sure people are safe when staff are working across the four houses and are not immediately present?
- 03Have all staff DBS checks now been reviewed or renewed, and how is this monitored?
- 04How often do staff now receive formal one-to-one supervision?
- 05How do you check that residents understand and follow arrangements for checking visitors before opening the door?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, and the ratings remained Good because they had not changed since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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.
Every inspection of 5 Everton Road
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.