CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Peel House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding and risk assessments gave clear guidance. Medicines were generally managed safely, but inspectors found three unsigned medicine administration entries and some unsigned records for creams and lotions.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and people’s health, eating and drinking needs were monitored. The outdoor space was mainly grass, which could make it difficult for some wheelchair users to move around.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw people treated with kindness, respect and dignity. Staff knew people well and relatives and health professionals spoke positively about the care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s preferences, communication needs and social histories. People were supported to take part in activities in the local community, although end-of-life planning was still being developed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was visible and staff spoke highly of them. Quality checks were described as robust, but the issue of staff feeling valued by the provider had not been fully resolved.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Peel House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines and staffing issues to watch.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 24 May 2018. The inspector spoke with one person, four staff members, the manager, a visiting health professional, a stakeholder and two relatives. They also reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, incidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding, risks and people’s health needs. Care plans were detailed and personalised, and people were supported to make choices and take part in community activities.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Relatives and health professionals gave positive feedback. There were some shortfalls, including gaps in medicine administration records, some unsigned cream records, staff turnover and agency use. Inspectors also noted that end-of-life care planning and wheelchair access to the garden still needed improvement.
The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns and no legal breaches were identified.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff spending time with people and responding warmly. People appeared relaxed and happy in their interactions with staff.
“Throughout our inspection we saw and heard people being treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans described people’s choices, communication and preferences in detail. Staff used this information in everyday care.
“Support plans were person centred and included people's choices and preferences about their care.” from the report
Good safety systems
Staff knew how to identify and report abuse. Risk assessments and safe recruitment checks were in place.
“Support plans contained risk assessments and plans provided clear guidance for staff on how to keep people safe.” from the report
Community activities
People were supported to attend activities such as music clubs, swimming, theatre trips, shopping and church.
“People had access to the community. Staff supported people to attend a variety of activities such as music clubs, swimming, theatre trips, shopping and the church.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home carried out audits and acted on some issues identified through reviews. The manager was described as approachable and supportive.
“Robust quality assurance processes were in place.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingThree medicine administration records had gaps where staff had not signed. Some records also lacked signatures confirming that creams and lotions had been applied.
“Although we saw three gaps on MAR charts where staff had omitted to sign to confirm they had given medicines as prescribed, immediate action was taken” from the report
Staff turnover and agency use
needs fixingOne relative said high staff turnover was unsettling and that agency staff were less proactive than permanent staff. The manager said agency use had reduced after new recruitment.
“There has been a high staff turnover, which I think is unsettling.” from the report
Garden accessibility
minorThe outside space was mainly grass. Inspectors said some people using self-propelled wheelchairs might find it difficult to move around outside.
“This meant that some people in self-propelled wheelchairs might find it difficult to move around outside.” from the report
End-of-life planning
minorAdvanced care plans existed, but the manager said this area was still being improved and discussions with people and their parents were ongoing.
“The registered manager said this was an area of care planning they were working on to improve.” from the report
Staff feeling valued
minorThe provider’s review found that staff did not always feel valued, and inspectors said this had not been fully resolved.
“This issue had not been fully resolved.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure every medicine and cream administration is signed correctly?
- 02How many agency staff are currently used, and how are you reducing the effect of staff turnover on continuity of care?
- 03What has been done to make the garden easier for people using self-propelled wheelchairs to access?
- 04How are people and their families involved in recording end-of-life choices?
- 05What action has been taken to help staff feel more valued by the provider?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 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 Peel House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 2014.
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 £1,340 a week. 82 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.