CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 15 Mossmead
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including PPE, testing, visiting and outbreak management. They found no regular cleaning system for soft furnishings, and the staffing contingency plan did not follow current national guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control, but soft-furnishing cleaning and the staffing contingency plan needed improvement.
The home is a small residential care home for up to four people with learning disabilities. Two people lived there when inspectors visited on 7 January 2022.
This was an announced, targeted inspection during a COVID-19 outbreak. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures. They found that people were supported to isolate safely, keep in touch with relatives and continue some family trips and social activities.
Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including testing, personal protective equipment, visiting and outbreak management. However, there was no system for regularly cleaning soft furnishings such as curtains, cuddly toys and cushions. The staffing contingency plan was also not in line with current national guidance. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safe visits and family contact
The home had an adapted visiting area and supported people to see friends and relatives safely. People could also continue some trips and social events with their families.
“People were supported to have visits with friends and relatives safely, there was an adapted area within the home for visiting to take place.” from the report
Appropriate protective equipment
Inspectors saw staff using PPE properly. The home had a clear area for putting on and removing PPE, with signs to help visitors follow the guidance.
“We observed that staff were using PPE appropriately throughout our inspection.” from the report
Testing and outbreak arrangements
People and staff were supported to test in line with national guidance. Visitors were offered testing on arrival and had their temperatures checked.
“People and staff were supported to test for Covid 19 in line with current national guidance.” from the report
Soft furnishings were not on cleaning schedules
needs fixingInspectors found regular cleaning schedules but no system for cleaning curtains, cuddly toys and cushions. The home said it bought equipment and cleaned these items after the inspection.
“However, there was no system in place for cleaning soft furnishings such as curtains, cuddly toys and cushions.” from the report
Staffing contingency plan was out of date
needs fixingThe plan used during a recent COVID-19 outbreak did not match current national guidance. CQC recommended that the home update it.
“However, this plan was not in line with current national guidance.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the staffing contingency plan since this inspection?
- 02How are curtains, cushions and cuddly toys cleaned now, and how is this recorded?
- 03How do you check that soft furnishings remain on the regular cleaning schedule?
- 04What arrangements are in place if COVID-19 or other illness causes staff shortages?
- 05How will people continue to see family and take part in activities during any future outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full service inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind, person-centred care, with some staffing vacancies and feedback systems to improve.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 13 February 2019. One inspector reviewed care plans, daily records, activities, medicines, audits and meeting minutes. They spoke with people, managers and health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely, people received kind support, and care was based on their routines, choices and communication needs.
People were supported with health appointments, meals, hobbies and activities in the home and community. The home was clean and well maintained. It was not fully staffed, with vacancies covered by relief and agency staff.
The previous inspection in October 2017 rated the home Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that improvements had been made, especially in medicines management. They also recommended keeping involvement projects and feedback information up to date.
Safer medicines
The home had introduced new checks for medicine records and staff practice. Medicines were stored securely and at the correct temperature.
“New processes had been implemented to improve the safety of medicines management.” from the report
Kind, individual support
Staff knew people's communication methods, routines and interests. Inspectors saw patient and respectful support.
“We observed kind and patient interactions, from a caring staff team.” from the report
Choice and personalisation
People helped choose meals, bedroom colours, furniture, activities and holiday arrangements. Their care plans recorded their interests and preferences.
“People chose the colour of their bedrooms, as well as how their rooms were laid out.” from the report
Health and activities
People were supported to attend health appointments, take part in physical activity and join social activities in the community.
“People were supported to attend social activities, such as activity centres and dance exercise classes.” from the report
Staffing vacancies
needs fixingThe home had one full-time and one part-time vacancy. Relief and agency staff covered these shifts, so ask how continuity and knowledge of people's needs are maintained.
“The home was not fully staffed. There were vacancies for one full time and one part time staff member.” from the report
Feedback systems not up to date
minorSome projects showing people's involvement were not kept current, and the feedback box was not being used. Inspectors recommended reviewing these systems.
“However, these were not kept up to date, to be used as reflections of achievements.” from the report
- 01How are the full-time and part-time vacancies being covered, and how do agency staff learn about each person's communication needs and routines?
- 02What checks are now used to make sure medicine administration records remain complete and accurate?
- 03How will people be helped to use the feedback box and take part in household meetings?
- 04When will the planned positive behaviour management training and follow-up with the behaviour specialist take place?
- 05How are people's choices recorded and reviewed when planning meals, activities and community visits?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and both the care and premises; the previous rating was Requires Improvement in October 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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 15 Mossmead
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,300 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.