CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Nottingham Care Village Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe staffing, recruitment, medicines practice and infection control, although some DoLS re-authorisations were delayed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection, although inspectors reported that people were treated as individuals.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this inspection, although inspectors said changing needs were responded to quickly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture, person-centred care and regular quality checks. A new manager was applying to become registered.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, with some DoLS re-authorisations not completed on time.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 May 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with eight people and five staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable staff checks, safe medicines practice, effective infection control and systems for responding to accidents and concerns.
Inspectors found that some DoLS re-authorisations had not been submitted on time. The manager had identified this and taken action, and inspectors found no negative impact on people. There was a new manager who had applied to become registered.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse, harm and neglect.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
People received medicines safely and on time. The manager had acted on a medicines audit to make records easier to read and complete.
“Medicines were managed appropriately, which meant people were protected from unnecessary risks and harm.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found an open culture where concerns were addressed and feedback was encouraged. Management carried out audits and used action plans for shortfalls.
“There was an open culture in which all safety concerns raised were addressed and valued as integral to learning and improvement.” from the report
Person-centred care
People were treated as individuals and supported to remain as independent as possible. Staff responded to changing needs quickly.
“People received care from staff that was person-centred and aimed to provide positive outcomes.” from the report
Delayed DoLS re-authorisations
needs fixingSome legal re-authorisations for restrictions on people's liberty had not been submitted on time. The manager had identified this and taken action, and inspectors found no negative impact on people.
“Some people had restrictions imposed on their liberty through DoLS procedures, however not all DoLS had been submitted for re-authorisation in a timely manner.” from the report
Registered manager application
minorThere was no registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. The new manager had submitted an application to become registered.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post;” from the report
- 01Have all delayed DoLS re-authorisations now been submitted and approved?
- 02How do you monitor future DoLS re-authorisation dates so they are completed on time?
- 03What is the progress of the new manager's application to become registered?
- 04What changes were made after the medicines audit, and how do you check that medicines records remain accurate?
- 05How are key workers used to identify and act on people's concerns earlier?
This inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other three key question ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and management arrangements still needing attention.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 12 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff files, training, supervision and safety records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and liked the staff. Inspectors found enough staff, improved medicines management, clean surroundings and care that respected people's dignity, choices and independence.
The home had improved since its previous Requires Improvement rating, published on 28 August 2018. Risk management, medicines, staff training and quality checks had improved. However, agency staff did not have a formal written induction, some records needed updating, and the manager was not yet registered with CQC.
Improved safety arrangements
Risks to people's health and safety were assessed, acted on and reviewed. Emergency evacuation plans and improved environmental checks helped staff respond safely.
“The risks to people's health and safety were now appropriately assessed, acted on and reviewed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives liked the staff. Inspectors saw staff offer reassurance, protect dignity and notice when people needed help.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a calm, reassuring manner.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, routines and preferences. Staff knew these choices and used them when providing care.
“People's care records contained details about people's likes, dislikes and personal choices and preferences in relation to their care.” from the report
Improved activities
People said the activities programme had improved and included choices such as bingo, films, music and trips out.
“People spoke positively about the activities programme that was now in place.” from the report
Cleaner, better quality monitoring
The home was clean and well maintained. Quality checks had become more useful and led to action plans and progress reviews.
“Action had been taken to address these issues.” from the report
Agency staff induction
needs fixingAgency staff were shown around and told about immediate risks, but there was no formal written process to confirm they understood what was required.
“However, there was not a formal written process in place that ensured they had understood what was required of them.” from the report
Some records were incomplete or out of date
needs fixingThere were gaps in records for some creams, fluid charts did not show recommended daily amounts, and some care records contained information from years earlier.
“We did note some records were lengthy and contained information from years prior to the inspection which could cause some confusion to staff, especially new or agency staff.” from the report
Manager not registered
needs fixingThe manager had been in post for ten months without being registered with CQC. An application was submitted after the inspection, but CQC said it would monitor this.
“This meant there had been no registered manager in place for ten months.” from the report
- 01How do you confirm that agency staff understand each person's risks, medicines and care needs before they work alone?
- 02How do you check that fluid charts include each person's recommended daily amount?
- 03How are old care records archived so staff only use the latest information?
- 04Has the manager now been registered with CQC, and if not, what is the current position?
- 05How can residents and relatives make a complaint, and who can they contact if they are unhappy with the response?
This was an unannounced, one-day inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 October 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 Nottingham Care Village Ltd
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 March 2016.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.