CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Quantock House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, PPE, testing, hygiene, admissions and possible outbreaks. They noted that there was not a designated pedal bin at the PPE station, and the registered manager said this would be addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection. Inspectors noted that appropriate assessments had been completed when people lacked capacity to make specific decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection. The report says people were supported to maintain social relationships and access the community.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection. The report describes a visiting policy explaining how visits would take place safely.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection. Staff understood the infection control procedures and the registered manager said the PPE disposal issue would be addressed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements, with one minor issue about PPE disposal.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 28 January 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than a full assessment of all areas of care.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and infection outbreaks appropriately. Staff understood the procedures and had received infection control training.
People were supported to keep in touch with others and access the community. The home had regular testing for people and staff, and completed appropriate assessments when people could not make particular decisions.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a full overall rating or ratings for all five areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors found systems to reduce the risk of infection spreading through visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had been trained in infection control and knew how to use PPE and follow the home’s procedures.
“Staff had received training in infection control, including how to use PPE.” from the report
Social contact
People were supported to keep relationships going and to access the community.
“People were being supported to maintain social relationships and access the community.” from the report
Testing and decision-making
Regular testing was carried out for people and staff. Appropriate assessments were completed when people lacked capacity for specific decisions.
“Regular testing was carried out for people and staff. Where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions appropriate assessments had been conducted.” from the report
PPE disposal
minorInspectors found that the PPE station did not have a designated pedal bin. The registered manager said this would be addressed.
“We highlighted there was not a designated pedal bin at the PPE station to dispose of PPE.” from the report
- 01Has the designated pedal bin at the PPE station now been provided?
- 02How are visits currently arranged and how are visitors kept safe from infection?
- 03How often are people living at the home and staff tested for infections?
- 04What infection control training have staff received recently, including training on PPE?
- 05How are people supported to maintain relationships and access the community safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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, April 2018
Quantock House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and menus needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over 8 and 9 March 2018. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also observed care, looked around the home and checked care, medicine, training and safety records.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found safe staffing, safe medicines, suitable care plans and respectful relationships. People were supported to make choices, stay active and use local community services.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection in November 2015.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found that staffing levels matched people's needs and helped them access activities and the community.
“Staffing levels were appropriate to the needs of the people using the service to ensure they had access to the community and recreational activities.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff supported people's choices, privacy and independence. Inspectors saw respectful interactions and staff asking permission before entering bedrooms.
“We found caring and respectful interactions between staff and the people living at the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's communication, health, activities, preferences and abilities. People and relatives were involved where possible.
“People received care which was person centred and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Risk assessment detail
needs fixingSome risk assessment entries did not give staff enough detail about how to keep risks as low as possible.
“However some of the entries in the risk assessments did not have sufficient detail to guide staff to keep risk to a minimum.” from the report
Nutritional value of menus
needs fixingPeople had choices about meals, but inspectors questioned whether the menus were sufficiently nutritious. The manager agreed to ask a dietician to review them.
“The registered manager agreed to get the menus reviewed by a dietician.” from the report
Quality audit summaries
minorAudits were being completed, but inspectors suggested that they should include yearly summaries to show longer-term trends.
“We suggested that the audits should be developed to include annual summaries of trends.” from the report
- 01How have you added detail to the risk assessments since this inspection?
- 02Has a dietician reviewed the menus, and what changes were made?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain suitable when people go out into the community?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and choosing activities?
- 05Do your current quality audits include annual summaries of trends?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service covering all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating from November 2015 was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 2018 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 Quantock House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 November 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 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.