CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 32 South Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people felt safe, risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing was sufficient, and medicines were given as prescribed. Some bathroom flooring needed replacing because it did not allow adequate cleaning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a person-centred culture, involved people and staff in decisions, and had effective checks in most areas. However, provider audits had not been completed regularly and the medicines audit was not comprehensive.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Prime Life Limited - 32 South Street: Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and supported, but provider checks and some bathroom flooring needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 June 2022. One inspector spoke with four people and seven staff, reviewed five care records, two medicines records, recruitment files and records about the home’s daily management.
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, risks were assessed and reviewed, there were enough staff, and medicines were given as prescribed. The home also supported people to make choices and worked with health and other services.
The provider had not completed a full service audit for more than a year. The medicines audit was not thorough, and some bathroom flooring was coming up, making cleaning harder. The overall rating was Good, unchanged from the previous rating published in May 2019, but the inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and knew how to report concerns.
“People we spoke with told us they felt safe living in the service.” from the report
Risks were managed
Care records identified individual risks and explained how staff should reduce them. Records were reviewed regularly.
“Risk assessments and associated care plans detailed the action staff needed to take to mitigate known risks.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. Recruitment checks included background checks and references.
“Our observations showed there were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
People were involved
People were involved in decisions about their care and changes to the home. Staff understood people’s goals and supported independence.
“There was a person-centred culture within the service.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with health professionals and other agencies to support continuity of care.
“Staff worked with healthcare professionals to provide continuity of care for people” from the report
Provider oversight
needs fixingThe provider had not completed a service compliance audit for more than a year. CQC recommended regular audits to check safety and quality.
“The provider did not undertake regular compliance audits.” from the report
Medicines audit
needs fixingThe medicines audit did not give a complete picture. A more detailed audit was due to be introduced in July 2022.
“The medicines audit undertaken by staff at the service did not provide a thorough overview of medicines.” from the report
Bathroom flooring
minorSome bathroom lino was coming up from the floor. This made it difficult to clean properly, and replacement was planned.
“We found the lino on some of the bathroom floors was coming up from the floor.” from the report
- 01Have all the bathroom floors with loose lino now been replaced?
- 02Has the new, more comprehensive medicines audit been introduced, and what does it check?
- 03How often does the provider now complete audits of the home’s safety and quality?
- 04What was the previous rating for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be fully inspected?
- 05How are people and staff involved in checking whether improvements have been made?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with the other key question ratings carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 2022 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 2022
Prime Life Limited - 32 South Street: targeted inspection found infection controls were assured, but the service was not rated.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
Inspectors found systems for checking visitors, including their vaccination status. Staff helped people understand changes to COVID-19 guidance, including hand hygiene and mask use.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing possible outbreaks and facilitating visits in line with current guidance. Staff and visiting professionals who needed to be vaccinated were meeting that requirement.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a new overall or key-question rating.
Visitor checks
The home had thorough checks when people arrived, including checks of vaccination status for health and social care professionals.
“Thorough checking systems were in place on arrival for visitors.” from the report
Support with infection guidance
Staff supported and educated people about changing COVID-19 guidance, including hand hygiene and mask use when going into the community.
“Staff supported and educated people to understand changes in COVID-19 guidelines.” from the report
Staff training checks
The home regularly checked whether staff were putting their training into practice.
“Regular competency checks of staff implementing their training into practice were in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors' vaccination status and infection risks checked now?
- 02How are visits being facilitated under the current guidance?
- 03How are people supported to understand infection control guidance and changes to it?
- 04How are staff competency checks carried out and recorded?
- 05How does the home manage staffing pressures linked to COVID-19?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 2022 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 32 South Street
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
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.