CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Perran Bay Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks and staff who understood safeguarding. Medicines, accidents, risks, equipment, cleanliness and fire safety were being managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were knowledgeable and trained to meet people's needs. People received support with healthcare, nutrition and communication, and their choices were taken into account.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed being kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to make choices about their routines, privacy, communication and where they spent their time.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and had been updated to reflect changing needs. The home offered varied activities, respected people's choices not to join in and supported people and families with end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had clear responsibilities and used audits covering areas such as medicines, care files, the environment and infection control. People, families and staff were able to give their views.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Perran Bay Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with previous record-keeping and medicines problems improved.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 9 August 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and visiting professionals. They observed care, checked the building and reviewed care records, staff files, training, rotas and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, safe medicines processes, accurate care plans and good management of risks.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people's needs and preferences, supported healthcare appointments and offered a wide range of activities. People and relatives said they felt safe, comfortable and listened to.
The inspection also checked improvements requested after April 2017. Inspectors found that care records, pressure-relieving mattress checks, incident reviews, medicines procedures and quality audits had all improved. The home was meeting the outstanding legal requirements from that inspection.
Care records and risk management
The electronic care planning system was fully in use. Inspectors found the four care plans they sampled were accurate and gave staff current guidance about risks and support.
“They were all accurate with information relating to managing risks complete.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine procedures had been reviewed. Audits identified errors, self-administration was risk assessed and medicines were checked for expiry and safe storage.
“There were no medicines or creams which were out of date.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly relationships and staff taking time to talk with people. Privacy, personal routines and individual choices were respected.
“Throughout our inspection we observed staff providing support with respect and kindness.” from the report
Activities and personal choice
People could choose from group activities, one-to-one support, trips and community events. The home respected people who preferred quieter time.
“The service had a broad range of activities which people could take part in.” from the report
Management oversight
The home had regular audits and monthly unannounced quality visits by members of the charity board. Actions were recorded and checked.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now check that care plans and risk assessments remain accurate when a person's needs change?
- 02How are medicines audits used to prevent repeat errors, including for people who self-administer?
- 03How often are pressure-relieving mattresses checked, and who records any changes needed?
- 04What activities and one-to-one support would be available for my relative if they did not want to join group activities?
- 05How can families see the results of complaints, audits or resident feedback and what action was taken?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and checking improvements required after the April 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Perran Bay Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care but unsafe medicines management, missing care records and weak checks.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 24 April 2017. Inspectors spoke with people, staff, visitors and a healthcare professional. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and other records.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Caring. Staff were trained and supported, food was suitable, and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. There were activities, outside space and opportunities for people to make choices.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Some people did not have up-to-date care plans or risk assessments. Medicines were not always managed safely, including an error, out-of-date medicines and incomplete checks. The home was in breach of Regulations 12 and 17.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw calm and considerate care. People's privacy, dignity and personal choices were respected.
“Staff were kind, respectful and spoke with people considerately.” from the report
Staff knew people's needs
Although some written care information was missing, staff could explain how they supported individuals and inspectors judged that people's needs were being met.
“However, we judged that staff had a good knowledge of people's needs and that these needs were being met.” from the report
Staffing and training
The home had enough staff during the inspection. Staff received induction, supervision, appraisals and relevant training.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people who used the service.” from the report
Caring environment
The home was clean, warm and personalised. People had access to activities, visitors and outdoor areas.
“We walked around the service which was warm, comfortable and personalised to reflect people's individual tastes.” from the report
Medicines were not consistently safe
seriousInspectors found a medicines error, out-of-date medicines and incomplete checks. Some people were self-administering medicines without a documented safety assessment.
“Out of date medicines were found to be available for use.” from the report
Care plans were incomplete or hard to find
seriousSome electronic care plans were missing or inaccurate, while archived paper records were not easy to locate. Some written care instructions were not being followed.
“Some people living at the service did not have a current accurate accessible care plan or risk assessments in place on the electronic system, to guide and direct staff on how to meet people's needs.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingThe management team had not identified several of the problems found by inspectors. Regular audits of care plans and medicines were not being carried out effectively.
“Quality assurance systems were not robust.” from the report
Mental capacity training was incomplete
needs fixingThe home understood people's rights in practice, but not all staff had received specific training on the Mental Capacity Act and related safeguards. The policy was also out of date.
“We recommend that the service follow its own policy and provide training on the MCA and associated DoLS legislation to all staff.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure every person has a current care plan and risk assessment that staff can easily access?
- 02How are medicines now checked for errors, expiry dates, storage and accurate administration records?
- 03How are people who self-administer medicines assessed and reviewed for safety?
- 04How are pressure-relieving mattresses set to the correct level and checked regularly?
- 05What audits are now carried out, and how does the manager know that identified problems have been fixed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with ratings given for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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 Perran Bay Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementdown from OutstandingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.