CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Overseal Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, infection control was suitable, and there were enough suitable staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people were helped with food, drinks and access to health professionals. The home was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's routines and preferences and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, complaints and planning for end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive and open culture. Managers used audits, feedback and partnership working to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Overseal Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with informal complaints needing better recording.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 October 2023. One inspector spoke with six people and seven staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, food and staffing records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, received medicines as prescribed, and had enough staff to meet their needs.
People described staff as kind and respectful. Their care was personalised, activities and communication were adapted to their needs, and health care support was arranged when needed. The home had systems for complaints, but inspectors discussed the need to record informal complaints and how they were resolved.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found staff available throughout the day and able to support people promptly. Recruitment checks had also been completed before staff started work.
“Staff were available throughout the day in communal areas and supported people promptly when needed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and respectful. Staff understood individual routines and supported people at their own pace.
“People were supported by kind and compassionate staff who understood what was important to them.” from the report
Food and drinks
People at risk of malnutrition or dehydration were monitored and supported. Inspectors saw people being encouraged to have drinks and snacks.
“Food and fluid charts demonstrated that people had been offered enough to eat or drink on a regular basis.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were reviewed and support was adapted to people's needs and preferences. Accessible menus and picture cards helped people understand information.
“People were supported as individuals, in line with their needs and preferences.” from the report
Open management
People and staff were able to give feedback, and the management team used audits and working with health professionals to improve care.
“People and their relatives had opportunities to provide feedback to the registered manager on an informal basis and during care reviews.” from the report
Informal complaints records
minorNo formal complaints had been made, but inspectors discussed recording informal complaints and how they were resolved. This would help show that all concerns had been addressed.
“We discussed recording informal complaints and how these had been resolved, to demonstrate that all complaints were addressed.” from the report
- 01How do you record informal complaints and show how they were resolved?
- 02How would you support my relative if they were at risk of malnutrition or dehydration?
- 03How would you adapt care for my relative's communication needs or dementia?
- 04What activities would be available that match my relative's interests and preferences?
- 05How would you record and follow my relative's wishes about end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five ratings, including the premises and the care provided; nursing care was not provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 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 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly sound infection control, with some recording and PPE-area problems.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. The home was caring for 22 people at the time, and could support up to 30.
Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements. These included testing, visiting procedures, social distancing, cleaning, isolation, outbreak planning and the supply and disposal of protective equipment.
There were some gaps. Visitor risk information and some cleaning tasks were not always recorded. The area used by staff when putting on and removing protective equipment was not suitably placed, but this was changed before inspectors left. The overall service and Safe question were inspected but not rated.
Visitor safety
The home had procedures for visitors, including relatives and healthcare professionals, with protective equipment and social distancing arrangements.
“There was a clear system to ensure visitors followed the current guidance on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
There was a regular testing programme for staff and residents, alongside plans for positive tests, isolation and staff shortages.
“There was a clear regular programme for staff and people living in the home to be tested for COVID -19.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had a good supply of protective equipment and followed procedures for using and disposing of it.
“Staff followed procedures for don and doffing PPE and how to dispose of it safely, in line with government guidelines.” from the report
Isolation arrangements
People who tested positive stayed in their rooms, while arrangements were made for others to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“People using the service self-isolated in their own rooms if they tested positive for COVID-19.” from the report
Visitor records
needs fixingInformation was not always recorded to show that visitors had been checked for possible COVID-19 risks. The manager said this would be addressed.
“Although we found data was not always recorded to ensure visitors were not a potential risk of COVID-19.” from the report
Protective equipment area
needs fixingThe area where staff put on and removed protective equipment was not suitably placed. The home changed this before the inspection ended.
“However, we found concerns that the area used for staff don and doffing process was not suitably placed.” from the report
Individual risk records
needs fixingRisk assessments covered high-risk groups but did not always identify each person's individual risks. The manager said this would be addressed.
“General risk assessments were in place for people in high risk groups, but not individual to identify personal risks.” from the report
Cleaning records
minorThe home was clean and staff said cleaning was being completed, but some daily cleaning records had gaps. The manager identified this as a training issue.
“We found some gaps in the daily cleaning schedules.” from the report
- 01How do you now record checks showing that visitors are not a possible COVID-19 risk?
- 02Where is the staff area for putting on and removing protective equipment, and how do you check it is being used safely?
- 03How are individual risks for residents recorded and reviewed, rather than relying only on general risk assessments?
- 04How do you make sure all daily cleaning tasks are completed and recorded?
- 05How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 2020 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 Overseal Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Overseal Residential Care Home →
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Overseal Residential Care Home →
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.