CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Powys House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns, risks were generally assessed, staffing levels were sufficient, and medicines were administered safely. Inspectors did identify problems with topical cream expiry controls and rusty bath and shower chairs, which the manager acted on immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and health conditions. Staff were trained and supported, people received suitable food and health care, and the service worked with other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. People were involved in planning their care, treated with dignity, and supported to make choices and remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reflected people's likes, dislikes and routines. People could choose how to spend their time and were supported with activities, community access, communication and relationships.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People and staff spoke positively about the management team, but quality monitoring had not found some safety issues. The service had not reported all significant events to CQC and had not always followed its duty to be open and apologise after adverse incidents.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Powys House Residential Home was rated Good overall; care was kind and person-centred, but management systems required improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over 31 January and 3 February 2020. One inspector spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and visiting health and social care professionals. They also observed care and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, accident and management records.
Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices. There were enough staff, medicines were generally given as prescribed, care plans were personalised, and people were supported with activities, relationships, health care and independence.
The main weaknesses were in management checks and legal responsibilities. Some risk assessments were missing, systems for topical creams had not been followed, and rusty bath and shower chairs could not be fully cleaned. The manager acted immediately on these points. The overall rating stayed Good, but the well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement because some important events had not been reported to CQC and the duty to be open and apologise had not always been followed.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Inspectors saw staff listen to people and respond patiently when someone was upset or anxious.
“We saw staff were kind, respectful and listened to people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday decisions, take positive risks and use local shops and community facilities. They could also take part in household tasks and activities.
“People were supported to live their lives in accordance with their own choices.” from the report
Enough skilled staff
Inspectors found enough consistent staff to meet people's care and social needs. Recruitment checks, induction, training and supervision were in place.
“There were sufficient staff available to meet people's needs, keep them safe and support them with their individual activities.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, communication needs, health conditions and protected characteristics. Staff knew people well and supported their individual routines.
“Care plans were sufficiently detailed, personalised and focused on what people could do as well as the support they required.” from the report
Safety checks missed problems
seriousSome risk assessments were absent, topical cream safety procedures had not been followed, and two chairs were rusty and could not be fully cleaned. The management team took immediate action, but its own checks had not found these issues.
“These included the absence of some risk assessments, systems to ensure the safety of prescribed topical creams had not been followed, bath and shower chairs were rusty and could therefore not be adequality cleaned.” from the report
Legal duties were not always followed
seriousThe manager was not fully aware of the duty to be open and apologise, including in writing, after adverse incidents. The service had also failed to notify CQC about some abuse or allegations of abuse, although it had informed the local safeguarding team and taken action to reduce risks.
“Whilst we had been notified of some events we had not been notified of abuse or allegations of abuse which had occurred.” from the report
Quality monitoring needed strengthening
needs fixingThe provider had audits and checks, but these did not identify all the problems found during the inspection. This is why the well-led rating fell to Requires Improvement.
“The provider had a system and process to assess and monitor the quality of the care people received however, this had not identified areas for improvement we found during this inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every abuse concern or allegation is reported to CQC when required?
- 02How do you now make sure the duty to be open and apologise, including in writing, is followed after an adverse incident?
- 03Have the rusty bath and shower chairs been replaced, and how are equipment cleaning checks recorded now?
- 04How do you check that prescribed topical creams are not used beyond their safe use-by date?
- 05Have staff received the further training identified for assessing skin integrity and malnutrition risks?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided; the previous overall rating was Good, published on 27 June 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with two record-keeping issues corrected during the inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 April and 4 May 2017. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, the manager and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training and support, and good access to health professionals.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans were personalised, activities reflected people's interests, and people were supported to make choices, stay independent and maintain important relationships. Two recording shortfalls were identified and addressed during the inspection.
The home had breached two regulations at its previous inspection in February 2016. Inspectors found that action had been taken and there were no breaches at this inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and give them time and attention without rushing.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships and supported people's dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“Staff developed caring and positive relationships with people and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, backgrounds and needs. Activities and support were linked to what people wanted to do.
“Care plans and activities were personalised and focused on individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Good management
Inspectors found an open culture where people, families and staff could give feedback and raise concerns.
“The registered manager adopted an open and inclusive style of leadership.” from the report
Best-interest decisions were not initially recorded
needs fixingThe manager and staff followed the correct principles, but records of some best-interest decisions were not robust. The manager acted by the second day of the inspection, and the previous breach was no longer in place.
“Although, the registered manager and staff followed the principles of MCA, decisions made in people's best interest were not always recorded.” from the report
Injury monitoring records
needs fixingWhere a body map had been completed after an injury or concern, records did not show that monitoring had taken place. The manager took action to resolve this during the inspection.
“There were no records to show that staff had monitored the injury to ensure it was being managed effectively.” from the report
- 01How do you now record best-interest decisions, and how do you check that these records remain complete?
- 02How are injuries or other health concerns monitored and recorded after a body map is completed?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, based on their interests and abilities?
- 04How would you support my relative to make choices, refuse care or remain as independent as possible?
- 05How would my relative and our family raise a complaint, and how would we be kept informed of the outcome?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and included observations, discussions with people, staff and health professionals, and checks of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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 Powys House Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Powys House Residential Home →
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Powys House Residential Home →
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.