CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Objective Care Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe staffing, recruitment, safeguarding, infection control and incident management. They found repeated information on two medicines records for one person, which was corrected immediately, and recommended a review of kitchen-locking risk assessments.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no current rating is given in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so no current rating is given in this report. People and relatives nevertheless told inspectors that staff were caring and kind.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed when people's needs changed. People were supported with communication, activities, visitors, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, organised records, staff support, quality checks and evidence that incidents and concerns were investigated and used for learning.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Objective Care Limited is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with a recommendation about kitchen access.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 29 March 2023. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff records, medicines and quality checks.
The home supported up to eight adults with mental health needs, and all eight places were occupied. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, personalised care plans and good links with health professionals. People and relatives said staff were caring, kind and available.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Good. Caring and Effective were not inspected during this visit, so this report does not give new ratings for them. Inspectors recommended that the home review how it records decisions about locking the kitchen. A medicines recording error was corrected immediately.
Staffing and recruitment
There were enough staff, and recruitment checks were completed before staff started work. Staff received induction, training and support.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Personalised care
People had individual care plans. Their needs were reviewed and support was changed when needed.
“People's needs were regularly reviewed, and support was adjusted as required.” from the report
Communication support
The home recorded people's communication preferences and arranged support such as translation or British Sign Language training when needed.
“People's communication needs were met. Their preferred method of communication was addressed in their individual care plan.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home recorded and investigated accidents, incidents and safeguarding concerns. Inspectors found evidence that lessons were shared with staff.
“The service managed incidents affecting people's safety well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately” from the report
Kitchen access restrictions
needs fixingThe kitchen was sometimes locked to manage risks for some people. Inspectors found that the home had not shown this was the least restrictive way to manage those risks.
“Whilst there was a reason for some people having restricted access to the kitchen, the provider had not evidenced whether they had considered this the least restrictive way of managing the risks.” from the report
Medicines records
minorInformation about one person's medicines was repeated on two medicines administration records. The home corrected this during the inspection.
“Medicines were managed safely. However during the inspection, we found information about one person's medicines was repeated on 2 different medicines administration records (MARs).” from the report
- 01Which people may have their kitchen access restricted, and how do you record that this is the least restrictive option?
- 02What checks are now in place to prevent information being repeated or entered incorrectly on medicines administration records?
- 03How are people's care plans and risk assessments updated when their needs change?
- 04How do you make sure staff have the communication training needed by each person, including British Sign Language or translation support?
- 05How are accidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints reviewed to make sure lessons are acted on?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected during this visit and their ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Objective Care Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 5 December 2017. One inspector spoke with seven people, the registered manager and staff. They checked care records, staff records, medicines and the home's management records.
The home was supporting eight adults with mental health needs. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans and good support for people's health, choices and independence. People were described as happy, safe and well cared for.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection in February 2016, so this rating remained unchanged.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded through regular checks and audits.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind relationships
People had good relationships with staff and with each other. Staff were observed to be calm, respectful and reassuring.
“People were supported by kind, caring and compassionate staff who they liked and got on well with.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, daily routines, health needs and goals. Inspectors found that plans were followed and updated when needs changed.
“People's needs were planned for and they received personalised care which met these needs and reflected their preferences.” from the report
Good oversight
The home had organised records and regular checks covering areas such as medicines, the environment and people's experiences. Feedback from people, relatives and professionals was positive.
“The provider had systems for monitoring the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What has changed in the home since the Good rating in December 2017?
- 02What is the current staffing level during the day and at night?
- 03How are medicines checked and how are any errors or changes recorded?
- 04What is the current position on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications for the two people mentioned in the report?
- 05How are care plans reviewed when a person's mental health or other needs change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with checks of people’s care, staff records, medicines and the home's management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 2017 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 Objective Care Limited
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 May 2013.
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 Ealing
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 £1,300 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.