CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Point House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, staff understood safeguarding, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. Individual evacuation plans were not in place during the visit, but the manager agreed to put them in place immediately afterwards.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, staff were trained and supported, and people had access to healthcare. Staff also supported people with food choices, healthy eating and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as patient and kind. Inspectors observed caring interactions and found that people were involved in their care, treated with dignity and supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's needs, preferences and life histories. People were supported with goals, trips, activities, community links and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Staff worked well as a team and described a supportive workplace. The home had systems to monitor medicines, infection control, care plans, health and safety and staffing, with action taken when audits found shortfalls.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and emergency planning put right after the inspection.
The unannounced inspection took place on 07 March 2019. Two inspectors spoke with seven people, four staff members and reviewed care records, medicines records and other records about the home.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines support, personalised care, kind relationships and good systems for checking quality.
The previous comprehensive inspection in July 2017 rated the home Requires Improvement in every area and found three legal breaches. At this inspection, inspectors said sufficient improvements had been made and found no breaches.
Kind relationships
People spoke positively about staff, and inspectors observed many kind and caring interactions. Staff knew people well and respected their dignity and privacy.
“We observed many kind and caring interactions throughout the day between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained detailed guidance about people's health, social needs, preferences and life histories. People were involved in their care and supported to make choices.
“The care plans had detailed guidance around people's needs and preferences associated with their physical and mental health needs as well as their social and personal preferences and support needs.” from the report
Independence and community life
People were supported to work towards goals, take part in household tasks and use local services and activities. The home also supported trips and regular community involvement.
“People had opportunities to go out on trips and engage with the local community.” from the report
Improved leadership and checks
Inspectors found effective systems for monitoring the home. The report says the home had made many improvements since the previous inspection.
“There were effective systems in place which monitored the running of the service.” from the report
Individual fire evacuation plans
seriousThere were no specific evacuation plans for each person's needs during the inspection. The manager agreed to put these in place immediately afterwards and sent them to CQC.
“There were not specific evacuation plans (PEEPs) for individual people's needs.” from the report
CCTV consent records
needs fixingPeople had been consulted about CCTV in communal areas, but inspectors asked the provider to add further consent records. The provider did this immediately after the inspection.
“We asked that the provider put in place additional records for consent around the CCTV, which they did immediately following the inspection.” from the report
- 01Can you show us the individual evacuation plan for our relative and explain how staff would support them in a fire?
- 02How are consent records for CCTV kept up to date, and who can view the recordings?
- 03How will you keep our relative's care plan updated as their needs, preferences and goals change?
- 04What activities, work or community opportunities would be available for our relative?
- 05How can our relative and family raise a complaint, and how would we be told about the outcome?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 March 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, November 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff but unsafe staffing levels, gaps in care planning and weak oversight.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 13 and 14 July 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, audits and safety checks.
The home supported 20 people and could care for up to 22. Inspectors found some people felt safe and received their medicines as prescribed. Staff had training and understood how to protect people from abuse.
However, staffing was not always enough at busy times. Risk assessments were incomplete, some medicines and cleaning products were stored unsafely, and people's dietary needs were not consistently supported. Inspectors also found too little social engagement, some poor responses to distress and weak quality checks.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. This was worse than the Good rating recorded at the previous inspection in August 2014. The report identified three breaches of legal regulations.
Protection from abuse
Staff understood signs that someone might be experiencing harm and knew to raise concerns with the manager. People said they felt safe in the home.
“People were protected from the potential of experiencing harm and abuse.” from the report
Medicines generally given correctly
Inspectors checked five people's medicines and found they had received them as prescribed. Medicines administration records were completed appropriately.
“We looked at a sample of five people's medicines and found that people had received these medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Training and support
Staff had inductions, regular training and supervision. Staff spoke positively about the support they received.
“Staff received regular training, which was refreshed each year.” from the report
Access to health care
People were supported to see GPs, opticians and specialist health professionals when needed.
“We saw many examples of the people accessing the GP, opticians, and specialist health professionals when we looked at a sample of people's care records.” from the report
Some planned outings
The home arranged outings, including trips to local places and other activities. These usually took place monthly.
“We concluded that the service was making efforts to provide local outings” from the report
Staffing at busy times
seriousThere were not always enough staff to meet people's care and social needs, particularly in the early evening. The building layout also made it harder for office staff to provide help.
“There was no office staff present to assist in this situation.” from the report
Incomplete risk planning
seriousThree of four care records checked did not fully describe people's risks or the steps staff should take. Weight monitoring was not consistent for people at risk of losing weight.
“Three out of the four people's risk assessments did not fully identify the risks they faced.” from the report
Unsafe storage and checks
seriousPrescribed creams and some cleaning products were stored in a warm cupboard. One prescribed product was out of date, and some safety checks were not clearly recorded.
“Certain prescribed medicines and domestic products were not stored safely.” from the report
Food and healthy choices
needs fixingThe home did not consistently support healthy eating or involve people meaningfully in choosing and preparing food. Alternatives to the main meal were limited.
“There was no attempt to offer healthy options.” from the report
Distress, dignity and engagement
seriousInspectors saw a person sitting on a wet cushion and becoming distressed without prompt support. People were often left without social interaction, and dignity was not always promoted.
“We observed them becoming distressed before a member of staff reacted.” from the report
Weak quality oversight
seriousAudits did not identify important problems, and there were no independent provider audits. During the manager's absence, no one person had overall knowledge of the home.
“The provider was not completing any separate quality audits of the home to provide an independent review of the service to enable the home to improve.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels in the early evening, and how is the building layout now considered when staff are deployed?
- 02How are risk assessments and weight records checked now, especially for people with diabetes, smoking risks or a risk of weight loss?
- 03How are prescribed creams, cleaning products and other medicines stored and checked?
- 04What regular social activities and opportunities for independence are now available when people are at home?
- 05What independent quality audits have been completed since this report, and what improvements did they identify?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five areas, following a Good rating at the August 2014 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 November 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 Point House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.