CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Poplars
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had risk assessments, emergency evacuation plans and appropriate safeguarding arrangements. Inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment, but recommended improvements to PRN medicine protocols and checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff received relevant training and supervision. The home supported nutrition, healthcare, communication and decision-making, including mental capacity requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed calm, friendly and kind interactions. People were supported to make choices, maintain relationships, develop independence and take part in activities they enjoyed.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people and relatives were involved in them. Information was available in accessible formats, and people were supported with activities, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture, regular staff meetings and an improvement plan. There was no registered manager in post during the inspection, but a new manager had been recruited.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements still needed for PRN medicines and end-of-life planning.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. Two inspectors visited on 15 March 2023 and reviewed care, medicines, staffing, records and how the home was managed. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff.
The home supports up to six people with learning disabilities and mental health conditions. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, safe recruitment and care that promoted choice, independence and community activities. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found the improvements had been made and those breaches no longer applied.
Inspectors recommended that the home review its arrangements for PRN medicines. They also found that end-of-life care plans had not been completed for everyone, although no one was receiving end-of-life care at the time.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, use their own spaces and build independence through activities and routines.
“People living at the service had adapted their bedrooms to their likings and were supported to attend outdoor pursuits of their choice and their independence was promoted.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships and people appeared relaxed. Staff understood people's preferences and respected their privacy.
“We observed positive staff interaction, staff spoke with people in a calm, friendly and kind way.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe. Staff had training in areas including safeguarding, medicines, epilepsy, autism and positive behaviour support.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe. Staff received a wide range of training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people safely.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans and other information used written and pictorial formats to help people understand information and express their views.
“Staff ensured people had access to information in formats they could understand.” from the report
PRN medicine guidance
needs fixingSome medicines to be given when needed did not have clear PRN protocols. The monthly medicine audit did not prompt checks of these medicines or protocols, so the home was asked to review its practice.
“We found where people were prescribed medicines when required (PRN), they did not always have a PRN protocol in place.” from the report
End-of-life plans
needs fixingThe home had introduced pictorial end-of-life care plans, but these were not completed for everyone. No one was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection.
“However, we found these were not completed for all of the people using the service.” from the report
Registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection because the previous manager had resigned. A replacement had been recruited and was expected to start within four weeks.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to PRN medicine protocols and monthly medicine audits since this inspection?
- 02How will you discuss and complete end-of-life care plans with each person and their family?
- 03Has the new manager started, and who is responsible for the home if they have not?
- 04How will you continue supporting each person to take part in activities, education and community life?
- 05How can people and relatives raise a complaint, and how will the home check that everyone understands the process?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, to check improvements after the previous Requires Improvement rating and regulatory breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 2023 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found improved person-centred care and infection control, but said improvements still needed to be sustained.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 11 and 16 March 2021. Inspectors looked mainly at infection control and whether people were being unnecessarily restricted during the pandemic.
They found people appeared relaxed with staff. Care plans and behaviour support plans had improved. Staff knew how to support people, and inspectors found effective measures to prevent and manage infection.
The new manager had introduced quality checks and promoted a more open culture. Relatives and professionals gave positive feedback. However, the staff team was still settling in, and inspectors said more time was needed to make sure improvements lasted.
The service was inspected but not rated. Safe and Well-led remained listed as requires improvement from the previous inspection because this visit did not assess the full questions. The previous inspection rating was requires improvement, published on 30 October 2019.
Person-centred support
Care plans had been revised with specialist input. They explained what could cause distress and how staff could help people calmly.
“There were new personalised behaviour action plans which highlighted what might trigger or cause distress and provided guidance on distraction techniques staff could use.” from the report
People’s choices
Inspectors found that people were involved in decisions about where they lived and were supported in the least restrictive way possible.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures covering visitors, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Open culture
The home had a relaxed and open atmosphere. Relatives and professionals gave positive feedback about the changes.
“There was a relaxed and open culture at the service.” from the report
Quality checks
New quality monitoring tools had been introduced and were being used to improve safety and involve people in keeping their home safe.
“At this inspection, we found a new set of quality tools had been introduced.” from the report
Improvements not yet proven to last
needs fixingThe new manager and largely new staff team had made progress, but inspectors said more time was needed to show that improvements would continue.
“Further time was needed to ensure improvements continued and were sustained.” from the report
Previous concerns remained relevant
seriousThe provider was still in breach of regulations after the previous inspection. This targeted visit did not check every area, so it did not establish whether all earlier problems had been fixed.
“However, as this was a targeted inspection, we did not review whether enough improvement had been made in all areas and the provider was still in breach of regulations.” from the report
- 01Which regulations were still in breach after the previous inspection, and what has been done to fix each one?
- 02How do you check that the new behaviour support plans are being followed and that people are not unnecessarily restricted?
- 03How do you make sure the new quality checks continue to be completed and acted on?
- 04How are new staff being trained and supported while the staff team settles into the home?
- 05What will you do if there is another COVID-19 outbreak, and how will families be kept involved?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and whether people were unnecessarily restricted; it did not assess the full five key questions, so the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 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.
Every inspection of Poplars
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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
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.