CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Old School House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and harm. Inspectors found sufficient staff, individual risk assessments, safe recruitment and safe medicine arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was planned around their health, wishes and daily living skills. Staff had relevant training, supervision and support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. People were involved in everyday choices and supported to do things for themselves.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans and activities reflected people's individual interests, goals and communication needs. People were supported to raise concerns and make complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive, empowering and person-centred culture. Quality was monitored, families were asked for their views and learning from incidents was recorded.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Old School House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care that supported independence.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 9 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, families and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records, rotas and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate medicine arrangements and personalised care. People were treated with kindness, respect and dignity.
The home supported people with learning disabilities to develop independence and take part in their local community. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection. The report found no serious risks or concerns.
Support for independence
People were supported with cooking, laundry, travel and community activities. The home helped people build confidence and make their own choices.
“The service continued to encourage people to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. People were involved in decisions and their privacy was protected.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff at the service and were given emotional support when needed.” from the report
Safe care arrangements
Staff understood safeguarding, risk assessments gave clear guidance and staffing levels were sufficient. Medicines, emergency plans and safety checks were also monitored.
“People received their medicines safely and when they needed them.” from the report
Strong involvement of families and professionals
The home worked with families and a range of health and social care professionals. People and families were involved in reviews and quality surveys.
“People were fully involved in all their reviews, and for their annual review people had been supported to invite the key people who were important to them” from the report
Accessible care information was not consistent
minorInspectors found that care plans had different levels of accessible information. Key policies were available in picture format, but families should check how information is presented to each person.
“Care plans had varying levels of accessible information, and key policies were available in accessible picture format” from the report
End of life planning was still being developed
minorSome staff had completed end of life care training, but the provider was still developing a pictorial support plan. No one was receiving end of life care at the time of inspection.
“the registered provider was looking to develop a pictorial plan using photos to develop this model of support.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan is available in the format they understand best?
- 02What progress has been made with the pictorial end of life support plan?
- 03How will you support my relative to build independence in everyday tasks and travel?
- 04How are families involved when care plans change or incidents happen?
- 05What staffing levels will be in place to support my relative's activities, appointments and daily routines?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 2018 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 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found risks were managed safely after the previous inspection identified shortcomings.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 8 March 2017. Inspectors checked whether improvements had been made in the Safe area after a legal breach at the previous inspection.
People said they felt safe and staff were available to help. Inspectors found that risk assessments had been completed, medicines were managed safely, equipment was maintained and there were enough staff.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe. The other four areas were not assessed during this visit, so this report does not provide new findings about them.
Risk management
Risk assessments covered people’s care and support, including activities that helped them become more independent. Staff had written guidance on how to respond to identified risks.
“Action had been taken to ensure all risks associated with people's care and support had been assessed and steps were recorded of action staff should take in order to keep people safe and enable independence.” from the report
Medicines
The home had a medicines policy. Staff were trained and checked as competent, including for medicines prescribed when needed.
“People told us they received their medicines safely and when they should.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs and support their chosen activities. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“People had their needs met by sufficient numbers of staff and staff rotas were based on people's needs and chosen activities.” from the report
Safety of the building
The home and its equipment were maintained. Fire, gas and electrical safety checks had been carried out.
“People benefited from living in an environment and using equipment that was well maintained.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are each person’s risk assessments reviewed when their needs or chosen activities change?
- 02How do you make sure staff follow guidance for medicines prescribed as required or as directed?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty during the day and at night, and how do you cover any gaps?
- 04How often do people and staff take part in fire drills, and what happens if someone cannot evacuate independently?
- 05What checks do you carry out to make sure the improvements made after the previous inspection continue?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of the Safe area only; the other ratings were not assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 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 Old School House
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.