CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at PILS Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable staffing, safer recruitment checks, reviewed risk assessments and safe medicine arrangements. People were supported to take positive risks while staying safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had completed training and received supervision. People's health, diet, oral health and mental health needs were monitored, and people were supported to access health services.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's routines, choices and independence, and involved them in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's histories, preferences and communication needs. People took part in activities, maintained relationships and could raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had improved quality monitoring and moved records to an electronic system. Staff, people and relatives were involved in the service, and relatives gave positive feedback.
What inspectors found, May 2020
PILS Care was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 14 February 2020. They spoke with one person, two staff members and two relatives. They reviewed care, medicine and staff records, as well as records about the running of the home.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicine arrangements and support that reflected people's needs, choices and independence.
People had positive relationships with staff and were supported to take part in activities, use local facilities and maintain relationships. Staff also noticed changes in people's mental health and helped them access health care.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with one breach of regulation. The report says improvements had been made in recruitment, training records, care records and quality checks, and the home was no longer in breach.
Safe recruitment
Recruitment checks had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found checks of identity, employment history, references and DBS status.
“At this inspection a programme of structured checks was in place so people were supported by staff who had been recruited safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and routines. Support was aimed at helping people make choices, build skills and become more independent.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors found trusting relationships between people and staff. Relatives described the atmosphere as welcoming and family-like.
“There is a lovely atmosphere. It is like visiting a friend. They make a fuss of X.” from the report
Support for health
Staff monitored people's health and recognised changes in mental health. People were supported with appointments, medicines and oral health.
“Staff notice when my family member starts to get unstable. They get onto it immediately and this prevents them from getting anxious and in a low state.” from the report
Improved oversight
Quality checks had become more effective since the last inspection. Records had also been transferred to an electronic system so staff could access them promptly.
“At this inspection quality and monitoring systems had been embedded and used to highlight areas of the service where improvements were needed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you make sure my relative has the right level of staff support when they are at home or going out?
- 02How would you support my relative to take medicines safely, including if they wanted to manage some medicines themselves?
- 03How do you recognise and respond to changes in a person's mental health?
- 04How are care plans updated when a person's needs, goals or preferences change?
- 05How do your electronic records and quality checks show that improvements from the previous inspection are being maintained?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home and covered all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 May 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.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but unsafe recruitment, missing training evidence and weak quality checks.
This was a planned inspection on 9 and 10 January 2019. One inspector spoke with the two people living in the home, the provider and a senior support worker. They reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was caring and responsive. People were treated with kindness, involved in decisions, supported to be independent and helped to enjoy activities and community life. Medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean and well maintained.
There were important weaknesses. The recruitment records for two staff members were incomplete, and the home could not show that staff had completed all required training. The quality checks had not identified these problems, so the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
The report says the provider agreed to improve recruitment, training and record keeping. CQC said it would discuss the changes with the provider and revisit the home to check whether improvements had been made.
Kind and respectful care
People said they liked living in the home. Staff listened to them, treated them kindly and understood their individual needs and preferences.
“People were listened to and treated with kindness and care by staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, important relationships and the support they needed. Staff could explain how people preferred to be supported.
“Care plans were individual and person centred, providing detailed information about each person and the support they needed” from the report
Independence and community life
People were supported to use public transport, take part in activities and build their confidence while suitable risks were assessed.
“This enabled people to achieve positive outcomes and promoted a good quality of life.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Records showed that people received their medicines as required, and staff competency was checked.
“Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousNeither of the two staff files reviewed was complete. The records did not show full employment histories, suitable references or proof of identification.
“We looked at two staff recruitment files and neither of them was complete” from the report
Missing training evidence
needs fixingThe home could not provide certificates to show that staff had completed training. Some essential training had not been completed.
“Although the provider told us staff had attended training courses online and showed us a handwritten record of the courses staff had undertaken, there were no certificates to evidence these had been completed.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe monitoring system had not identified the recruitment and training weaknesses. The move from paper to electronic records also meant some records were difficult to find or could not be found.
“However, this had not picked up the recruitment and training issues we noted.” from the report
- 01What recruitment checks are now completed before a new staff member starts, including employment history, references and identification?
- 02Can you show evidence that every staff member has completed the training needed for the people living here?
- 03How do you check staff understanding of the Mental Capacity Act, infection control, and equality and diversity?
- 04How have you improved the quality assurance system so it identifies recruitment and training gaps?
- 05How do you make sure records remain complete and easy to find during the move to electronic recording?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home environment, with records reviewed for both people and two staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 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 PILS Care
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 January 2011.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway
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 £1,250 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.