CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Muston Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, PPE, testing, cleaning, shielding, social distancing and outbreak management. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Muston Road was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, visiting arrangements and support during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 January 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found the home was clean, tidy and fresh smelling. They found detailed risk assessments, suitable use of protective equipment, testing arrangements and measures to manage visitors and possible outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Clean and tidy home
The home was clean, fresh smelling and tidy. Cleaning records were available, and plans existed to deal with worn furnishings or décor.
“The service was clean, smelt fresh and was tidy throughout.” from the report
Clear risk planning
Risk assessments covered COVID-19 symptoms, safe access to the community and visits.
“Detailed risk assessments were in place for people who used the service” from the report
Safe visiting
Visitors could continue to visit, with screening, testing and protective equipment. The manager recognised the benefit of visits to people's emotional wellbeing.
“People continued to have visitors and the registered manager recognised the benefit this had on people's emotional well-being.” from the report
Activities and outdoor space
The home adapted activities during the pandemic. People had access to a large garden, sensory areas and an outdoor visiting dome.
“During the pandemic staff were creative in considering how people's needs could continue to be met including having stimulating activity.” from the report
Protective equipment and training
Staff had plentiful access to protective equipment and wore it appropriately. They had infection control training, with their skills checked by managers.
“Staff had plentiful access to PPE and wore this appropriately.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visiting arrangements and infection control measures managed now?
- 02How do you respond if there are COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 03How will you assess and manage my relative's individual risks, including when they access the community?
- 04What activities and outdoor spaces would my relative be able to use?
- 05What are the home's current ratings or inspection findings for caring, effectiveness, responsiveness and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated in the areas covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 2022 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, March 2018
Muston Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with limited feedback from relatives and health professionals.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 16 January 2018. One inspector met all three people living at the home, observed care, spoke with managers and staff, and checked care records, medicines, training, recruitment and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe and well cared for. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and staff understood people's risks, health needs and communication methods. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities at home and in the community.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found the home met the relevant standards and that its previous Good rating continued. No serious risks or concerns were identified.
Enough staff and safe support
Staffing levels allowed people to go out for social activities and appointments. Staff used individual risk assessments and supported people in the community.
“We saw there were sufficient staff on duty to enable people to go out when they wished for social activities and to attend hospital appointments.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw calm, friendly interactions. Staff listened to people, explained what was happening and protected their privacy and dignity.
“The staff spoke with them in a tone and manner demonstrating care, kindness and respect and people responded positively towards the staff.” from the report
Personalised activities and independence
People had activities and outings based on their interests. Staff also helped people develop daily living skills such as cooking, housekeeping and laundry.
“People who used the service each had their own personal timetable of activities and outings written for them by the staff and based on each person's preferences, interests and hobbies.” from the report
Trained and supported staff
Staff completed essential and specialist training and received regular supervision. Inspectors found they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.
“People were cared for and supported by well trained, motivated and highly skilled staff.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
The home worked with health professionals and kept detailed information about nutrition, choking and swallowing risks. People had access to health checks and specialist support.
“Within people's files we found extremely detailed care plans relating to nutrition.” from the report
Limited outside feedback
minorThe response rate to questionnaires from relatives and health professionals was poor. The manager was considering other ways to obtain their views.
“The response rate to questionnaires sent to relatives and health care professionals was poor.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's communication method, preferences and choices are understood by every member of staff?
- 02What staffing arrangements would support my relative to attend appointments, activities and community outings?
- 03How would you assess and manage my relative's specific health, nutrition, swallowing or behavioural risks?
- 04How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and how can we give feedback if questionnaires are not convenient?
- 05What training and supervision would the staff supporting my relative receive?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the home had three people living there and inspectors said they could not hold in-depth conversations because of people's communication difficulties. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 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 Muston Road
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 August 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.