CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Notrees
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were in place, including PPE, testing, hand hygiene, visitor checks and safe admissions. They identified some areas needing more deep cleaning and asked for broader infection control audits.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Notrees had a targeted inspection and was not rated; inspectors found good infection control overall, with some cleaning and audit improvements needed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 21 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
The inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. They found enough protective equipment, effective hand hygiene, suitable visitor checks, safe admissions, and arrangements for testing and vaccinations.
Most areas were very clean, but inspectors identified some areas needing more deep cleaning. They also asked the management team to make infection control audits cover protective equipment use and staff practice.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rating for the other four questions.
Activities and community links
An activities coordinator helped reduce isolation during lockdowns and supported people to stay involved in their local community.
“During the pandemic, an activities coordinator position was created. The activities coordinator had a positive impact, preventing social isolation during lockdowns” from the report
Protective equipment
There were enough supplies of personal protective equipment for infection control.
“There were sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment.” from the report
Hand hygiene
Hand hygiene points were available throughout the building, and inspectors saw staff clean their hands between caring for different people.
“We observed staff perform hand hygiene between caring for different people.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors had their COVID-19 vaccination status and lateral flow test checked before entering the main building.
“The service ensured that visitors had their COVID-19 vaccination status and lateral flow test checked before entry to the main building.” from the report
Infection control audits
needs fixingThe inspectors said the audits should cover more than refurbishment work, including PPE use and staff practice.
“We asked the management team to review the content of the audit to cover other areas of infection control, such as use of personal protective equipment and staff practice.” from the report
Deep cleaning
minorMost areas were very clean, but inspectors identified parts of the building where deep cleaning needed more attention.
“We pointed out areas in the building where deep cleaning required more attention.” from the report
- 01Have the infection prevention and control audits been expanded to include PPE use and staff practice?
- 02Which areas needed deep cleaning, and has that work now been completed?
- 03How are staffing pressures affecting the home, and what measures are in place to manage them?
- 04How are visitor vaccination checks, testing and visiting arrangements being managed now?
- 05How will activities and links with the local community continue for residents?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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 2019
Notrees was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some evacuation plans needing more detail.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 24 January 2019. Two inspectors spoke with five people, the manager and care staff. They reviewed care plans, staff records, complaints, incidents and quality checks, and observed care.
The home supported up to 16 older people, with 15 living there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans, good support with food and healthcare, and a clean environment.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people's preferences, supported activities and maintained links with families and the local community. End-of-life care was described as compassionate and based on people's wishes.
All five areas were rated Good. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in April 2016. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns.
Caring and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and provided patient, personalised support. Inspectors found that people were treated with dignity and respect.
“Staff were kind and patient in their approach when encouraging people in their day to day activities or personal care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, routines and communication needs. Staff adjusted their approach when people needed extra reassurance or support.
“People's care plans documented their preferences and routines around their personal care.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, including when needs changed. Inspectors observed medicines being managed appropriately.
“There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people, including when their care needs changed.” from the report
Good quality monitoring
The manager used regular audits, feedback and improvement plans to identify and act on issues affecting care and safety.
“The audits and checks were effective in helping the registered manager monitor the quality and safety of the service” from the report
Activities and community links
People could join daily activities or follow their own interests. The home also arranged links with local people and schools.
“There were a range of activities organised by the provider which people could participate in.” from the report
Evacuation plans needed more detail
needs fixingNot all personal emergency evacuation plans explained people's individual needs clearly enough. The manager acted immediately and agreed to review all records.
“Not all the PEEPs's contained sufficient detail to demonstrate that people's individual needs were considered in their evacuation plan.” from the report
- 01Have all personal emergency evacuation plans now been reviewed, and how do they describe each person's individual needs?
- 02How are relatives involved in creating and reviewing care plans?
- 03How do you respond when a person's health or care needs change?
- 04What daily activities are available, and how do you support people who prefer individual interests?
- 05How do you check that medicines continue to be ordered, stored and administered safely?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous inspection in April 2016 also rated the service Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 March 2019 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 Notrees
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 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
42 live-in carers within about an hour of West Berkshire
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. 36 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“Titus has compassion, patience, a great sense of humour and a very professional attitude.”
“Barbara treated my mother-in-law with enormous love and compassion and provided an environment where she could feel safe and seen”
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.