CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT The Poplars
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk management and safe medicines procedures. The home was clean and equipment was regularly serviced.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff received training and supervision. People were supported with food, healthcare, communication and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in their care, supported to remain independent, and treated as individuals.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained personalised information and people were supported with relationships, activities, communication and end-of-life preferences. This rating fell from Outstanding at the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team knew people well, supported staff and used checks to monitor quality. Two notifications about incidents were sent retrospectively after the inspection.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with two incident notifications sent late.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 11 June 2019. Two inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and received Good ratings in all five areas. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, supported to make choices, and helped to follow their interests.
Care plans were personalised and staff understood people's needs. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean. The report also says two notifications about incidents were sent retrospectively after the inspection.
The overall rating stayed Good from the previous inspection in 2016. However, Responsive fell from Outstanding to Good, meaning inspectors still found people's needs were met, but judged the service less highly in this area than before.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found positive relationships between staff and people. Staff understood people's personalities, rights and individual needs.
“People were cared for and supported by staff that were kind, patient and respectful.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included detailed information about what mattered to people. Staff spent time with people and relatives to understand their preferences.
“Care plans contained detailed, personalised information about what was important to people.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to maintain friendships and take part in activities and entertainment in the home and community.
“The service provided a range of activities and entertainment for people.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored securely, administered as prescribed and checked by trained staff.
“Records showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Two notifications were sent late
minorThe report says two notifications about incidents affecting people's safety or welfare were submitted retrospectively after the inspection. This was a shortfall in the home's reporting process, although the overall Well-led rating remained Good.
“all notifications were submitted in a timely manner expect two which were sent in retrospectively following the inspection.” from the report
- 01What were the two notifications that were sent retrospectively, and what has changed to prevent late reporting?
- 02How will you assess and support my relative's individual needs, preferences, beliefs and communication needs?
- 03What activities would be suitable for my relative, and how are people supported to continue hobbies and relationships?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough suitably trained staff to meet people's needs at all times?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection of the whole service, covering all five CQC questions; the overall rating stayed Good, while Responsive fell from Outstanding to Good since 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 July 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
OSJCT The Poplars was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and Outstanding support for activities and personal choices.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 July 2016. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Good. Responsive was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, trained staff, kind relationships, suitable food and access to healthcare.
People were supported to follow their interests and stay involved in the local community. Care plans focused on individual needs and choices. The home had complaint arrangements and regular checks to monitor quality.
Activities and community links
People could take part in varied activities, follow their hobbies and maintain links with local groups, schools and community organisations.
“People were at the heart of the service. They were enabled to take part in a range of innovative activities of their choosing” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly relationships and staff taking time to listen. Privacy, dignity, personal choices and independence were respected.
“Staff had built a positive and caring relationship with people and treated them with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines records checked during the inspection showed no gaps, and staff followed safety procedures.
“We looked at medicine administration records (MAR) for seven people and found that medicines had been given consistently and there were no gaps in the MAR charts.” from the report
Individual care
People and relatives were involved in care planning. Plans focused on people's needs, preferences, independence and life stories.
“We looked at the care plans for four people and saw that individual care plans focussed on supporting the person to live well and maintain their independence.” from the report
Anonymous feedback
minorThe home had a suggestion box, but the manager said it was seldom used. Anonymous comments could make it difficult to respond directly.
“However, the registered manager said that they seldom received comments this way and it was difficult to respond in person as they were usually anonymous.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure the wide range of activities and community links described in the report are still available?
- 02How often are care plans reviewed with residents and relatives, and how are changes in needs recorded?
- 03How do you check that there are enough suitably skilled staff on every shift?
- 04How can residents and relatives give feedback now, and how are complaints followed up?
- 05How are people's medicines checked and recorded, including any changes made by healthcare professionals?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, medicines, staffing and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 2016 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 OSJCT The Poplars
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.