CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Nayland House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risk assessments, safeguarding systems, staffing checks, medicines procedures and infection control arrangements were in place. There had been a short period when fire safety checks were not completed, but inspectors were told regular checks had resumed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had relevant training and supervision. People had choices of food and drink, access to health professionals and support that followed mental capacity requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw compassionate and respectful interactions. People's dignity, privacy, independence, diversity and involvement in care decisions were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's needs and preferences, and staff responded to requests for help. People had access to group and one-to-one activities, and complaints were addressed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The managers were visible and people, relatives and staff said the home was well led. Audits, meetings, feedback and an improvement plan were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Nayland House Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some short-term maintenance and cleaning issues.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 17 January 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training, cleaning and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, received their medicines safely, had access to health professionals and were supported with food, drink and activities.
People and relatives described kind and respectful staff. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, complaints were addressed, and managers used audits and an improvement plan to identify and act on shortfalls.
This was the first inspection under the current provider. The previous provider was also rated Good in 2018, but that rating does not cover the current provider.
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered, stored and recorded safely. Staff who supported people with medicines had training and competency checks.
“There were safe systems in place to ensure medicines were administered, stored and recorded.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people compassionately and respectfully. People’s dignity, privacy and independence were supported.
“During our inspection visit we saw staff interacted with people in a respectful and compassionate manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people’s needs and preferences. Staff supported people at their own pace and responded to requests for assistance.
“We saw person centred care in practice, where staff took the lead from the person and supported them at their own pace.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in group or one-to-one activities, while their choice not to participate was respected.
“We saw people participating in a range of group activities during the day, this included playing games with a bat and balloon and bowls and adult colouring.” from the report
Visible management
People and relatives knew the management team, and staff said they felt supported. Audits and an improvement plan were used to identify and address shortfalls.
“A range of audits were undertaken which assisted the management team to monitor the service provided, identify any shortfalls and take action to address them promptly.” from the report
Fire safety checks
needs fixingThere was a short period when fire safety checks had not been completed because there was no maintenance staff member. Inspectors were assured that regular checks had restarted.
“Fire safety checks were undertaken, however, there was a short period where they had not been carried out, when there had not been a maintenance staff member in place.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
needs fixingA concern had been raised about bedroom hygiene. The home introduced daily senior checks, was reviewing cleaning schedules and planned a deep clean.
“Lessons were learned and daily checks by senior staff had been introduced.” from the report
Building repairs
minorInspectors found exposed hot water pipes, which were covered and made safe immediately. A broken boiler had also left a small area cold, although electric heaters were provided and repair action was reported.
“Immediate action was taken by the registered manager when we pointed out exposed hot water pipes.” from the report
- 01How often are fire safety checks now completed, and how are missed checks recorded?
- 02What were the results of the extra daily cleaning checks and the planned deep clean?
- 03Have the boiler and the planned environmental improvements, including the older wooden windows, been completed?
- 04How do you make sure staff knock on bedroom doors and respect people's privacy every time?
- 05How do you check that staffing levels remain enough at weekends as well as on weekdays?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; it was the first rating inspection under the current provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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.
Every inspection of Nayland House Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 June 2021.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.