CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Overleat Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, effective safeguarding and clear plans for risks such as falls, skin damage and fire. Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans were reviewed when needs changed. Staff received relevant training and worked with health professionals, while people were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff involved people and families in decisions and supported independence wherever it was safe to do so.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and communication requirements. People could choose activities, meals and where to eat, and the service adapted as their needs changed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture and visible leadership. Audits, staff support and monitoring systems had improved, and the service sought views from people, relatives and staff.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Overleat Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 10 March 2019. They met everyone living in the home, spoke with residents, staff, a relative, the provider and manager, and reviewed care records, incidents, complaints and quality checks. They also observed care and received feedback from families and a local GP practice.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, good risk management, safe medicines systems, individual care plans and positive links with health professionals.
People and relatives described kind and respectful care. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and offered activities and meals suited to individual preferences. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in April 2018.
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and professionals consistently described compassionate care. Staff used a gentle and patient approach and knew people's personal preferences.
“Everyone we spoke with confirmed they were well treated and cared for.” from the report
Good understanding of risks
Staff knew about people's risks and had clear guidance to support them safely while promoting independence. Equipment and professional advice were used where needed.
“When people had been assessed as being at risk, staff had clear guidance on how to minimise the risk while allowing people to remain as independent as possible.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, communication needs, abilities and preferences. The home adapted support when people's health or mobility changed.
“Care plans were detailed and contained information which was specific to people's individual needs and the routines they liked.” from the report
Improved leadership and monitoring
The report says leadership and quality monitoring had improved since the previous inspection. The home had regular audits and better monitoring of training and staff support.
“Systems had been developed to ensure performance remained good.” from the report
Good food and choice
Meals were freshly cooked, with choices and alternatives. Staff monitored nutrition and supported people to eat patiently and at a time and place that suited them.
“People were encouraged to eat a varied and healthy, homecooked diet.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the improvements to quality monitoring and audits been maintained since this inspection?
- 02How do you assess and manage my relative's risks, such as falls, skin damage or moving around the home?
- 03How will you support my relative's particular communication needs, especially if they are living with dementia?
- 04What choices would my relative have about meals, eating location, daily routines and activities?
- 05How do you involve families and health professionals when a person's needs or health change?
This was a planned inspection of the whole service and covered all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but safety, people's rights and leadership needed urgent improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 19 February and 6 March 2018. It followed concerns about people's safety and the quality of leadership. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff, the manager and provider, and checked care records, medicines, meals, staffing and other records.
People were not always protected from risks. Some health and behaviour risks lacked clear plans for staff to follow. Inspectors also found an unsecured steep staircase and an unguarded radiator. An allegation of abuse had not been properly investigated or recorded.
The home did have enough staff, safe medicines systems and thorough recruitment checks. People praised the food and staff were seen supporting meals kindly. However, the Mental Capacity Act was not always followed, staff lacked regular supervision, activities were limited and quality checks had failed to find these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their earlier ratings were carried forward. The provider was asked to send CQC an action plan, and had started making changes after the inspection.
Enough staff
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Inspectors saw call bells answered quickly and care delivered without rushing.
“There were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines
Staff who gave medicines were trained and had their competence checked. Daily checks and monthly audits were in place.
“The home operated safe medicine management practices” from the report
Kind mealtime support
People spoke highly of the food. Inspectors saw staff helping people with meals in a caring and compassionate way.
“People's meals looked appetizing and where people needed staff to help them eat we saw this was done in a caring and compassionate way.” from the report
Recruitment checks
Recruitment files showed checks such as identity, references, employment history and police records had been completed.
“Recruitment practices ensured, as far as possible, that only suitable staff were employed at the home.” from the report
Unmanaged safety risks
seriousSome risks were known but did not have clear plans for staff to follow. The inspection also found an unsecured staircase and an unguarded radiator.
“Some risks to people's safety had not been identified or mitigated.” from the report
People's legal rights
seriousMental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were missing in some cases. DoLS applications had been made without first checking whether people lacked capacity to make the relevant decisions.
“The provider did not act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.” from the report
Staff support
seriousStaff did not have regular meetings, supervision or appraisal. This meant leaders lacked a clear view of staff concerns, performance and training needs.
“Staff did not have regular meetings, supervision or appraisal.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not identify missing risk information, problems with Mental Capacity Act practice or trends in accidents and incidents. Feedback was also not gathered regularly.
“The systems and processes in place to monitor the safety and quality of care had not been effective in identifying the concerns we found during our inspection.” from the report
- 01What risk plans are now in place for diabetes, hot drinks, behaviour that may cause harm and the steep staircase?
- 02How do you check that Mental Capacity Act assessments and best-interest decisions are completed before restrictions or DoLS applications?
- 03How often do staff now receive supervision, appraisal and staff meetings?
- 04What activities are available for each person's interests and social needs, beyond watching television?
- 05What checks now identify missed risks, accidents, complaints and feedback from people, relatives and staff?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 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.
Every inspection of Overleat Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Overleat Residential Care Home →
- April 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Overleat Residential Care Home →
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 July 2011.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.