CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 96 Bishopton Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and suitable systems for safeguarding and managing risks. Medicines were ordered, stored and given correctly, and the home was clean.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training to meet people's specific needs and people could choose when to eat. Inspectors found access to healthcare and care that followed mental capacity and best-interest requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions and supported to have choice, control and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's wishes, preferences and goals. Staff supported communication, activities, community access, family relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a relaxed and friendly atmosphere, supportive management and regular checks on quality and safety. Feedback from people and staff was used to make improvements.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was a planned inspection on 1 and 2 October 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff and the manager, observed all six residents, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, clean surroundings and systems to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care reflected their wishes, communication needs and goals. They were supported with food, healthcare, activities, family relationships and independence.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous Good rating published on 9 May 2017.
Personalised support
Care was built around people's wishes, preferences and goals. Staff had detailed instructions about how to support each person.
“People's care was developed around their wishes, preferences and goals.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and take part in everyday tasks such as preparing food and shopping.
“Staff supported people in a way that maximised their independence, choice and control.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
The home had a calm, relaxed atmosphere, and inspectors saw caring interactions between staff and residents.
“Staff treated people with kindness and respect. The atmosphere in the service was calm and relaxed and we observed caring interactions between staff and people using the service.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities at home and in the community. Staff also supported holidays, sporting events and contact with family.
“Staff also supported people to go out in the local community, have holidays and attend sporting events.” from the report
Safe medicines
Trained staff managed medicines correctly, and medicines were reviewed using guidance aimed at avoiding overuse for people with learning disabilities or autism.
“Trained staff ensured people's medicines were ordered, stored and administered correctly.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits, checks, meetings and surveys to monitor quality and respond to feedback.
“A range of audits and checks were carried out to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, including any need for easy-read information?
- 02How would you support my relative to make choices and stay as independent as possible in everyday activities?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, and how would you respond if their interests changed?
- 04How would you involve my relative and our family in care planning and end-of-life preferences?
- 05How do you review medicines and make sure they remain appropriate for someone with a learning disability?
This was a planned inspection of the care, accommodation and management of the home, and all five CQC questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with stronger management and record checks than at the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced on 15 March 2017. The inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, and checked care plans, recruitment, training and management records. Further evidence was gathered by telephone and email on 6 April 2017.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found safe medicine systems, suitable staffing, personalised risk assessments and appropriate recruitment checks. Staff were trained, understood mental capacity requirements, and supported people's health, food, communication and activities.
People were treated with respect and staff knew their preferences and communication needs. Care plans were detailed and activities included community outings, college courses, music, drawing and other interests. The home had an easy-read complaints procedure.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. At the previous inspection in October 2015, the home had breached good governance requirements. Inspectors found that this had been corrected through better audits, action plans and records.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely. They found no errors when controlled drugs were counted.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) were completed correctly by staff who signed to indicate when medicines had been administered.” from the report
Staff know people well
Staff understood people's likes, dislikes, personal histories and ways of communicating. Inspectors saw respectful interactions and a relaxed atmosphere.
“Staff interacted well with people and the atmosphere was happy and relaxed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included detailed information about people's needs and preferences. People were supported to make choices and take part in activities that mattered to them.
“People's needs were assessed and very detailed plans of care produced.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had introduced regular checks, action plans and audits. Inspectors found significant improvement since the previous inspection.
“The action plan had been satisfactorily completed and significant improvements were found in records and governance systems.” from the report
Limited recent feedback surveys
minorThe home had not carried out a satisfaction survey for people and relatives during the previous twelve months. The manager said future surveys would be linked to person-centred reviews.
“There had not been a satisfaction survey for people and their relatives in the previous twelve months.” from the report
- 01How do you now collect and act on feedback from people and their relatives?
- 02How are Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards renewals monitored for each person?
- 03How many staff are on duty overnight, and how is extra one-to-one support arranged?
- 04How are people's activity timetables reviewed when their interests or abilities change?
- 05What findings have recent medicine, health and safety, and support-plan audits produced?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas, with further evidence gathered on 6 April 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 May 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 96 Bishopton Road
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 April 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
45 live-in carers within about an hour of Stockton-on-Tees
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 £980 to £1,190 a week. 40 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.