CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at No 39
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found problems with medicines records and as-needed medicine protocols, two wedged-open fire doors and missing evidence of identity checks for two staff. The home said these matters were addressed after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed carefully, staff were trained and supported, and people received help with food, health appointments and communication.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to communicate their wishes and make choices about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and focused on people's abilities, preferences and goals. People were supported to take part in activities, maintain relationships and use communication tools suited to them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, regular quality checks and an open culture. The home used feedback, incidents and reviews to improve care.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good overall; safe care Requires Improvement because medicines records, fire doors and recruitment checks needed attention.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. Inspectors visited on 21 July 2022, spoke with two people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home supported two autistic people, although it was registered for two. Inspectors found kind, person-centred support. People were helped to communicate, make choices, learn skills, attend appointments and take part in activities such as swimming and rock climbing.
The main weaknesses were in safe care. Some medicines records had not been updated promptly, not all as-needed medicines had clear protocols, two fire doors were wedged open, and evidence of identity checks for two staff was not available during the visit. The manager said these matters were corrected or addressed after the inspection.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, meaning inspectors found some safety problems and only limited assurance that care was always safe.
Personalised communication
Staff used pictures, symbols, Makaton, social stories and other tools to help people understand information and express their choices.
“People were fully supported to express their views, preferences, wishes and choices and staff used a variety of tools to communicate with people according to their needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about meals, activities and their support. Staff helped them learn new skills and pursue personal goals.
“The service supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to enjoy regular activities and new experiences, both in the community and at home.
“During our inspection we saw people being supported to go out swimming, rock climbing and for a walk.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. Relatives said staff understood people's needs, preferences and communication.
“All staff we encountered spoke about people with warmth, respect and positive regard.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were described as consistent and sufficient for people's one-to-one and two-to-one support.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs including for one-to-one or two -to one support.” from the report
Medicines records and protocols
needs fixingAs-needed medicines did not all have the required protocols, and one person's changed medicines had not been promptly added to care and emergency records. The manager updated these after the inspection.
“The process in place to support people to take prescribed medicines 'as and when required' (PRN) needed to be strengthened” from the report
Fire doors
seriousTwo fire doors were being held open because their guards were broken. Inspectors said this created a fire risk and it had not been risk assessed. The home later confirmed the guards were repaired.
“This posed a fire risk to people and staff and had not been risk assessed.” from the report
Recruitment evidence
needs fixingInspectors could not find evidence of identity checks for two staff during the visit. The manager later confirmed the checks had been completed at recruitment.
“However, we were unable to find any evidence that ID checks had been completed for two staff.” from the report
- 01Have all as-needed medicines now got clear protocols explaining when they should be given, how much to give and how their effect is checked?
- 02How do you make sure medicine changes are updated promptly in care plans and emergency handover records?
- 03Have the fire door guards been repaired, and how are fire doors now checked and any risks recorded?
- 04Can you confirm that identity checks and other recruitment checks are complete for every member of staff?
- 05How will you maintain the communication tools, activities and personal goals described in the report for my relative?
This was the first inspection and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; there were no previous ratings to carry over. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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.
Every inspection of No 39
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 January 2020.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of West Northamptonshire
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 £1,280 a week. 87 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!”
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.