CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Presentation Sisters Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were somewhat assured about PPE use and the hygiene of the premises. They found that face coverings were not always used correctly and that required cleaning chemicals were used inconsistently.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found some COVID-19 infection control weaknesses, although testing, supplies and activities were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 January 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than reviewing every part of the service.
Inspectors were somewhat assured that PPE was used safely and that hygiene practices protected people. Staff did not always wear face coverings correctly, and the required cleaning chemicals were not used consistently.
There were also positive findings. People and staff were being tested, PPE supplies were sufficient, visitors were prevented from entering, and people were supported with activities and phone or video contact with family.
The service was inspected but not rated. After the visit, the registered manager said the PPE and cleaning issues had been addressed, and extra touch-point cleaning had been introduced.
Regular testing
People and staff were being tested for COVID-19, with staff tested three times a week. Action was taken when testing identified a risk.
“Staff were being tested three times a week and action taken when any risk had been identified.” from the report
PPE supplies
The home had enough personal protective equipment available.
“The registered manager had ensured there were sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment.” from the report
Support with isolation
Staff provided activities and one-to-one support, including hairdressing and walks, to help reduce isolation.
“People using the service were supported to received recreational support from staff who focused on activities” from the report
Family contact
Although visitors were not being allowed into the home at the time, people could keep in touch with family by telephone and media calls.
“People continued to stay in contact with family through media calls and the use of the telephone.” from the report
Face coverings
seriousStaff did not always follow the required guidance when wearing face coverings. The manager said this was addressed after the inspection.
“Staff had not always followed the required guidance when wearing face coverings, this was addressed by the registered manager after our inspection.” from the report
Cleaning chemicals
seriousThe required chemicals were not used consistently to protect the home from the spread of COVID-19.
“There was an inconsistent use of the required chemicals to ensure the home was protected from the spread COVID-19.” from the report
PPE training
needs fixingInspectors said the problems with PPE may have been linked to staff not having up-to-date training.
“This may have been reflected by the lack of up to date training provided to staff in relation to the use of PPE.” from the report
- 01What checks now show that staff wear face coverings correctly every time?
- 02How do you make sure the required cleaning chemicals are used consistently throughout the home?
- 03What up-to-date PPE training have staff completed since the inspection?
- 04How often are people and staff currently tested, and what action is taken when a risk is identified?
- 05How are activities and contact with family being provided if visitors cannot enter the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not assess all five areas of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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.
What inspectors found, May 2020
Presentation Sisters Care Centre rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few issues needing attention.
Inspectors visited on 12 March 2020. They spoke with people, relatives, staff, a volunteer and a health professional. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found trained staff, suitable staffing levels, safe medicines systems, kind care, personalised support and strong management.
A few issues were found during the visit. A dietary supplement was stored incorrectly, one pressure-relieving mattress had the wrong setting, and an occupational therapy report had not been followed up. These issues were addressed or referred for action during or after the inspection.
People felt safe
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood how to identify and report concerns.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm by trained staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed patient and respectful interactions, with privacy and dignity maintained.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind, respectful and patient.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Staff encouraged choice, independence and involvement in care decisions.
“Care plans were developed in collaboration with people and their relatives and included their preferred routines, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could choose from planned group and individual activities. The home supported contact with relatives and offered spiritual and pastoral activities.
“Activities were organised and delivered on a schedule and allowed for people to choose activities most meaningful to them.” from the report
Strong management
The leadership team used audits, feedback and staff supervision to monitor the service. Staff reported good training, leadership and team morale.
“The registered manager and their leadership team were committed to providing a high standard of care.” from the report
Incorrect supplement storage
minorA dietary supplement was not stored properly. The manager corrected this immediately during the inspection.
“We found a dietary supplement had been improperly stored, however this was rectified immediately by the registered manager.” from the report
Mattress setting
needs fixingOne pressure-relieving mattress was set incorrectly for the person's weight. Inspectors said this could have caused skin injuries, and the setting was corrected immediately.
“One person with a pressure-relieving mattress was found to have their mattress on an incorrect setting for their weight, which could result in skin injuries.” from the report
Follow-up of specialist advice
needs fixingAn occupational therapy report had not been followed up. This meant staff did not yet have the recommendations needed to move the person safely from bed.
“In one instance however, a pending occupational therapy report following a visit had not been followed up by staff.” from the report
Care plan detail varied
minorSome care plans were more detailed than others. Inspectors found staff had enough information, and the home was moving to an electronic care planning system.
“People's care plans gave sufficient information on their histories, needs and preferences but some plans reviewed were more detailed than others.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that pressure-relieving mattresses are set correctly for each person's weight?
- 02How do you make sure occupational therapy and other specialist recommendations are followed up promptly?
- 03What checks are in place to ensure supplements and medicines are stored correctly?
- 04How will the electronic care planning system improve access to updated care information?
- 05How will you make sure all care plans contain the same level of detail about a person's needs and preferences?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with ratings given for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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.
Every inspection of Presentation Sisters Care Centre
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Presentation Sisters Care Centre →
- May 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Presentation Sisters Care Centre →
- September 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 May 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.