CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 35 Mede Way
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- There were enough staff, thorough recruitment checks and risk assessments. Medicines were securely stored and checked, and the premises were clean and well maintained.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training, supervision and checks of their work. People were supported with healthy food, consent decisions and healthcare appointments.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, compassionate and familiar with people's communication methods and preferences. People were supported with dignity, independence and contact with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and kept under review. People were supported to follow their own interests, take part in activities and maintain important relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as accessible and effective. Audits, meetings and questionnaires were used to monitor care and act on areas needing improvement.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 January 2018. The home supports up to two people with a learning disability, and two people were living there at the time. Inspectors spoke with one person, observed care for people who could not speak with them, and spoke with a relative.
Inspectors also spoke with staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, staffing rotas, quality checks, and maintenance records. They found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable training, detailed care plans, and good support with health needs and daily choices.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in January 2016, so the overall rating remained Good.
Safe medicines
Inspectors checked prescribed medicines and found that the amounts matched the records. Storage, temperature checks, staff training and medicine audits were in place.
“Medication was securely stored and temperatures were recorded to ensure that medication was being stored within the recommended levels.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans explained people's communication, choices and preferences. Staff supported people to make individual choices about activities, meals and daily life.
“Care plans documented how best to support people as well as details of people's choices and preferences” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and used different communication methods to support them. Inspectors saw that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“Staff were kind and compassionate in their approach and had good relationships with the people they supported.” from the report
Good leadership
The manager was visible and accessible. The home used audits, meetings and feedback from families and professionals to check the quality of care.
“The manager provided strong leadership and was visible and accessible.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you keep each person's care plan up to date when their needs or preferences change?
- 02How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines, including medicines given when needed?
- 03How do you support each person to communicate their choices and understand important decisions?
- 04How do you use feedback from families and people living at the home to make improvements?
- 05How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people want individual activities or community trips?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the report says the Good ratings remained unchanged from January 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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 35 Mede Way
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 March 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
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.