CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Obelisk House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- There were not always enough staff to provide care promptly, and some people at risk of falls were left unsupervised. Medicines, safeguarding processes and many risk assessments were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Not all staff had received training in catheter, stoma and end of life care. People's nutrition, healthcare and consent needs were otherwise assessed and supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well, spoke kindly, respected choices and protected privacy and dignity. People and relatives described staff as kind and friendly.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's preferences, communication needs and life history. People were supported to keep in touch with loved ones and access the community, although feedback about activities was mixed.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems and audits were in place but did not identify all the shortfalls found during the inspection. Staff felt supported, and the manager had an improvement plan and regular communication processes.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Obelisk House rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but concerns about staffing, staff training and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 14 October 2022. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, equipment and management checks.
The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found staff knew people well, treated them kindly, respected their choices and supported contact with families and the community. Medicines were managed safely, and people's health and dietary needs were monitored.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Staffing levels did not always meet people's needs promptly, and some people were left without supervision. Not all staff had received training for catheter, stoma and end of life care. Records and checks did not always identify problems with repositioning, equipment and fridge temperatures.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well, used their chosen names and supported their dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff demonstrated they knew people well and spoke with them kindly.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff who administered them had suitable training and competency checks.
“Medicines were safely managed. Safe protocols for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines were followed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, beliefs, life history and communication needs. People and their representatives were involved in care planning.
“People's care plans were person centred and included important information about them such as likes, dislikes, religious and cultural beliefs and life history.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
People were weighed regularly and staff acted when people lost weight. Staff worked with GPs, district nurses and other professionals.
“Staff worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to maintain people's health.” from the report
Staffing and supervision
seriousThere were not always enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Some people, including people at risk of falls, were left without supervision.
“There was not always enough staff to ensure people received the care they needed in a timely manner.” from the report
Gaps in staff training
needs fixingSome care staff had not received training for catheter, stoma or end of life care, despite supporting people with these needs.
“Care staff had not received training on end of life care which they were currently providing to some people living at the home.” from the report
Weaknesses in records and checks
needs fixingRepositioning was not always recorded at the required times. Audits also failed to identify issues with fridge temperatures and other shortfalls.
“Quality assurance systems had not identified the gaps found during the inspection in the recording of people's repositioning.” from the report
Limited activities
minorPeople and relatives gave mixed feedback about activities. Staff said staffing pressures made it difficult to provide enough activities or one-to-one time.
“People and their relatives told us that there were limited activities.” from the report
- 01How have staffing numbers and staff deployment across the four units changed since the inspection?
- 02Have all staff supporting people with catheters, stomas or end of life care now completed the relevant training?
- 03How are repositioning records checked each day, and what happens if a repositioning entry is missing?
- 04What activities and one-to-one time are now available, especially when staffing is busy?
- 05How are fridge temperatures, thickening powder storage and PPE use checked now?
This was the first inspection under a new provider and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous provider's rating was Good in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 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 Obelisk House
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 April 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
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.