CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Reach Ivy Cottage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments were up to date, staffing and recruitment were appropriate, medicines were managed safely, and the premises were maintained well.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were thoroughly assessed and staff had suitable training and supervision. People were supported with food, healthcare, communication, independence and positive behaviour support.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care and had opportunities to express their views.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed regularly. People were supported to communicate, keep in touch with family and friends, and take part in activities and community life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture, good teamwork and systems to monitor care quality and safety. Staff understood their roles and people, relatives and professionals gave positive feedback.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Reach Ivy Cottage was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only a minor cleanliness issue noted.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 31 July 2019. One inspector spoke with people, managers, relatives and professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, audits and safety records.
Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices and become more independent. Staff were trained, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in January 2017.
Choice and independence
People were supported to have control over their lives, make choices and develop new skills. The home aimed to help people live as independently as possible.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to provide the required support. Recruitment checks, staff training and medicines procedures were in place.
“There were enough staff to provide the support people needed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people respectfully and patiently. Feedback from relatives and friends was also positive.
“We saw staff treated people with respect. They answered questions patiently and politely and spoke in a professional manner when they told us about people's needs and requirements.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, choices and preferences, including communication needs. Plans were reviewed to reflect changes in people's circumstances.
“Care plans recorded people's needs, choices and preferences.” from the report
Good management
The home had regular checks, audits and monitoring visits. Staff worked together and with outside organisations to support people's care.
“There was good teamwork at the service.” from the report
Minor kitchen cleanliness issue
minorThe inspector found a build-up of dead insects in an electric insect killer in the kitchen. This was raised with the operations manager and arrangements were made to clean it.
“We mentioned to the operations manager the electric insect killer in the kitchen needed to be cleaned as there was a build-up of dead insects.” from the report
Restrictive interventions
needs fixingSome minor restrictive interventions were used as a last resort. The report says these were person-centred and supported by positive behaviour support guidance, but families should ask how they are monitored and reviewed.
“Some minor restrictive intervention practice was used as a last resort, in a person-centred way, in line with positive behaviour support principles.” from the report
- 01What situations might lead to restrictive physical intervention, and how is it recorded, reviewed and reduced?
- 02How will you support my relative to develop skills and become more independent?
- 03How will you assess and support my relative's communication needs, including the use of easy-read or pictorial information?
- 04How will my relative be involved in menu planning, activities and decisions about their care?
- 05How will you keep me informed if my relative has an accident, incident or significant change in their needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; the ratings in every area remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 August 2019 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, January 2017
Reach Ivy Cottage was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and well-managed support, with some staffing and record-keeping points to monitor.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 December 2016. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and professionals. They also looked at care plans, medicine records, staff files and other records.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities and could accommodate up to eight. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who understood their needs. People had access to health care, meals, activities, college and work placements.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection in December 2013 found the service compliant in the areas assessed.
Supporting independence
The home supported people to make choices and take part in everyday tasks while managing known risks.
“People were supported to take risks to retain their independence whilst any known hazards were minimised to prevent harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found warm relationships between staff and people. Staff listened, gave people time and promoted privacy and dignity.
“People received care and support from staff who had got to know them well.” from the report
Activities and community life
People had individual activity plans and were supported to attend college, work, leisure activities and community events.
“Each person had a weekly plan of activities which included work, college and leisure activities.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had induction, specialist training, supervision and observations of their work. They said they felt supported.
“Staff were suitably recruited, inducted, trained, supervised and supported.” from the report
Audits and records
The registered manager had introduced audits covering areas such as medicines, incidents, care plans and health and safety. Actions were followed up.
“The registered manager had already implemented their own quality assurance systems to enable them to monitor the quality of service being delivered and the running of the service.” from the report
Staff vacancies and agency use
needs fixingThere were three full-time care staff vacancies. Bank, home-employed and agency staff were used, and one professional said some agency staff lacked insight into a person's needs.
“The home had three full time care staff vacancies. They used bank staff, their own staff and agency staff to cover the vacancies.” from the report
One medicine record gap
minorMedicine records were generally complete, but one administration was not recorded. Inspectors checked that the medicine had been given and the manager addressed this immediately.
“There was one gap in administration of one person's medicine. We checked and saw the medicine had been given.” from the report
Professional recommendations
needs fixingA professional said some recommendations about improving communication were not consistently followed. Inspectors told the manager, who had not known about this before the inspection.
“Some recommendations were not consistently followed around improving communication with my client” from the report
Cleaning equipment checks
minorThe cleaning schedule did not include equipment such as wheelchairs and hoists. The manager agreed to add this to the equipment check schedule.
“The cleaning schedule did not include cleaning of equipment such as wheelchairs and hoists.” from the report
- 01How are the three full-time staff vacancies affecting staffing levels and continuity of care?
- 02How do you check the skills and understanding of agency staff before they support people?
- 03What changes were made after the gap in one person's medicine administration record?
- 04How do you make sure recommendations from health professionals are followed consistently?
- 05Have wheelchairs and hoists been added to the cleaning and equipment check schedule?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 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 Reach Ivy Cottage
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 August 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.