CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Peldon Campus
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- This was the only question assessed. Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, including visitors, testing, PPE, cleaning, admissions and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Peldon Campus was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements during a targeted visit.
Inspectors visited on 17 March 2021. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found arrangements for safe visiting, social distancing, shielding, testing, cleaning, PPE and safe admissions. They were assured that the home could prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a quality rating for the home or a rating for most of the five questions.
Safer visiting
The home had a visiting system designed to limit numbers and support social distancing.
“There was a booking system in place to stagger visitors and visiting times to minimise numbers and ensure social distancing could be maintained.” from the report
PPE arrangements
Staff had training and designated areas for putting on and removing PPE. Used PPE was disposed of safely.
“Staff were trained in using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and the service had designated areas for staff to put on and remove PPE.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Inspectors were assured that people and staff could access testing and that the home had arrangements to prevent or manage outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was accessing testing for people using the service and staff.” from the report
Activities during isolation
The home provided meaningful activities to reduce the impact of isolation.
“To mitigate the impact of isolation, meaningful activities are provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are staff, residents and visitors tested now, and what happens when someone tests positive?
- 02How do you currently arrange visits, and how do you manage visiting if there is an infection risk?
- 03What training and checks do staff receive on using and disposing of PPE?
- 04How do you support residents with meaningful activities if they need to isolate?
- 05How do you safely admit new residents and manage the risk of infection during admission?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the report gives no ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 2021 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 2019
Peldon Campus rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some records and premises needing improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 6 March 2019. Two inspectors reviewed information, spoke with people, relatives and staff where possible, observed care, and checked records and the premises. Two people spoke with inspectors, while others could not speak verbally or chose not to.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, staff were kind, care was personalised, and people were supported to make choices, stay independent and access health services.
There were some areas to improve. Some communal areas needed a deep clean, staff competency checks were not regularly documented, older information remained in care plans, and end of life preferences were not recorded. The older part of the residential home also needed updating and redecoration.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and how to reduce risks in the home and community.
“People were safe living in the service. Risks had been identified and people told us they felt safe and well looked after.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff listened to people, understood non-verbal communication and supported people with dignity. They encouraged people to do as much as possible for themselves.
“Staff were kind and caring and supported people to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could choose activities and take part in community opportunities that matched their interests and preferences.
“People had access to and took part in a variety of community activities according to their personal preferences.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff said managers were approachable and supportive. Inspectors found regular meetings, quality monitoring and partnership working with health professionals.
“We work as a team the management team are all really approachable and supportive.” from the report
Communal areas needed cleaning
needs fixingSome communal areas in the residential home needed a deep clean. Management had identified this and arranged for the work to be done.
“However, in the residential home some of the communal areas needed a 'deep clean' and this had already been highlighted by the management team who had arranged for this to be done.” from the report
Staff competency checks
needs fixingCompetency assessments were being completed during induction but were not being carried out and documented regularly afterwards. Inspectors discussed this with management.
“We discussed with the management team the need for competency assessments to be carried out with staff to ensure they were following best practice.” from the report
Old information in care plans
needs fixingCare plans were regularly reviewed, but some contained old information that needed archiving to make them easier to use.
“However, a lot of information in the care plans was old information and needed archiving to enable the care plan to be more user friendly.” from the report
End of life preferences
needs fixingCare plans did not include people's preferred end of life care. Management said this was being discussed with staff and needed to be addressed.
“People's care plans lacked information regarding people's preferred end of life care.” from the report
Older part of the home
minorThe older part of the residential home needed updating and redecoration. The provider was aware and had plans for refurbishment.
“The older part of the residential home required some updating and redecoration.” from the report
- 01Has the planned deep clean of the residential home's communal areas been completed, and how is cleanliness checked now?
- 02Are staff competency assessments now completed and documented regularly after induction?
- 03Has old information been archived from care plans, and how do you make sure the current information is clear?
- 04How do you record each person's preferred end of life care, and have these discussions taken place with families?
- 05What refurbishment has been completed in the older part of the residential home, and what work remains?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the premises; two people spoke with inspectors and others could not speak verbally or chose not to. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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.
Every inspection of Peldon Campus
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.