CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Patrick House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, safeguarding training, staffing, building checks and medicine systems were found to be in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support based on their needs and preferences. Staff had relevant training and supervision, although annual appraisals had not taken place in 2019 at the time of inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported their choices. People were encouraged to lead independent lives and maintain important relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People could choose meals and activities, communicate their views and use the complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open, inclusive culture and regular quality checks by the registered manager. Provider audits had not always been completed at the three-monthly frequency set out in the audit plan.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Patrick House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor gaps in staff appraisals and provider audits.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 December 2019. One inspector spoke with all six people living at the home, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff records and quality checks. They also observed daily life and looked around the building.
The inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and respected. Staff supported people to make choices, stay independent, join activities and access health services.
The home had enough staff, safe medicine systems and suitable safeguarding arrangements. Care plans gave staff guidance about people's needs and risks. Inspectors found some minor management issues, including overdue annual appraisals and provider audits not always completed at the planned frequency.
The overall rating was Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 20 June 2017. This means inspectors found the service was meeting the relevant requirements and providing consistently good care at the time of this inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and could speak to staff if they were worried. Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities and how to report concerns.
“I feel safe. I can talk to staff if I am worried about anything.” from the report
Promoting independence
Care plans explained how staff should reduce risks while supporting people's independence and choices. People were supported to take part in community activities and make decisions about their lives.
“People were supported to lead active and independent lives, in line with their needs and wishes.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff respect people's choices, privacy and dignity. People had regular opportunities to discuss their care and express their views.
“Staff treated people as individuals and their choices and preferences were respected.” from the report
Good safety and medicines systems
The home had enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and systems for administering medicines safely. Inspectors found accurate records of medicines given.
“People were receiving their medicines as prescribed by their GP, and staff kept accurate records about what medicines they had administered to people and when.” from the report
Positive leadership
People and staff gave positive feedback about the way the home was run. The registered manager carried out regular checks and acted when issues were identified.
“The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and acted when issues were identified.” from the report
Annual appraisals were overdue
needs fixingAnnual staff appraisals had not taken place during 2019 when inspectors visited. The manager said these would be arranged during December 2019.
“We noted annual appraisals had not taken place in 2019.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now had their annual appraisals, and how are appraisal dates tracked?
- 02Are provider quality audits now completed every three months as set out in the quality audit matrix?
- 03How will you support my relative to make their own choices and maintain independence?
- 04How are my relative's medicines recorded, checked and reviewed?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available to my relative?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the care home. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 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, June 2017
Patrick House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with mental health training and information needing attention.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 15 May 2017. The inspector spoke with five people, staff, the manager and two relatives. They observed care and checked records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported by enough staff, received medicines safely and were helped to make choices, stay independent and access activities and healthcare.
Inspectors found that staff had limited information about some people's mental health needs, and mental health training was not included in the training plan. The manager took immediate action to arrange training and provide updated support plans. The home had also been rated Good at the December 2014 inspection and remained Good.
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found enough experienced staff to meet people's needs. Staffing levels were monitored and adjusted when people's support needs changed.
“People were supported appropriately by sufficient skilled and experienced staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff and were treated with dignity. Staff listened, offered reassurance and encouraged people to express themselves.
“Staff treat me with dignity and respect all the time.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in their support plans and were helped to follow their interests, attend activities and access the community.
“People experienced care and support that met their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Good oversight
The provider used regular audits, meetings and surveys to monitor quality and gather feedback from people, relatives and staff.
“Systems were in place that monitored quality and safety and helped drive improvements.” from the report
Mental health training
needs fixingThe training plan did not include mental health training, even though some people had specific mental health conditions. The manager agreed to arrange this as a priority.
“Whilst the training plan showed staff received opportunities to complete training in a variety of areas including first aid and learning disability and autism awareness, mental health was not included.” from the report
Mental health information
needs fixingStaff had limited information about what some people's mental health needs meant and what to do if they became unwell. The manager took immediate action and sent updated support plan information after the inspection.
“Some people were living with specific mental health needs and information was limited for staff about what this meant for people and what action to take if they became unwell.” from the report
- 01Has all mental health training identified in the report now been completed, and how is staff understanding checked?
- 02How do staff recognise when a person with mental health needs is becoming unwell?
- 03Can we see how each person's mental health support plan describes what staff should do if they become unwell?
- 04How are staffing levels adjusted when a person's support needs change?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing support plans and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas, using observations, discussions, records and feedback from relatives. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 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 Patrick House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.