CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Regent Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks, safeguarding, staffing, recruitment and medicines were managed appropriately, and the provider learned from accidents and incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with eating, healthcare and their legal rights and choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, listened to them and treated them with dignity and respect. Staff involved people in care planning and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People took part in work placements, local activities, trips and holidays suited to their interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality. Inspectors found open management and links with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Regent Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, although the building is larger than current best practice guidance.
This was a planned inspection in May 2019. One inspector and an Expert by Experience visited, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care and staff records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors found that risks and medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, and people's care was personalised.
The home accommodates people with learning disabilities and was supporting 15 people at the time. It is larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service, but inspectors said the design and setting reduced the possible negative impact. The Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in December 2016.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and inspectors found that staff understood safeguarding and how to manage risks.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and planned support around their interests, communication needs, choices and independence.
“People lived full and active lives. Staff knew people well and understood what was important to them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were involved in decisions about their care and were treated with dignity and respect.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Good activities and community links
People were supported to attend work placements, events, local activities, trips and holidays of their choice.
“People regularly attended work placements, events and activities in the local community. They were supported to go on trips and holidays of their choice.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider carried out regular audits, created action plans when needed and encouraged feedback from people, relatives and staff.
“The provider monitored the quality of the service to make sure they delivered a high standard of care.” from the report
Building larger than current guidance
minorThe home is larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said its design and location helped reduce the possible negative effect on people.
“The service is a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the planned refurbishment of the roof, windows and kitchen?
- 02How would you support my relative to take part in activities, work placements, trips or holidays that match their interests?
- 03How do you review care plans when a person's needs, choices or communication needs change?
- 04How are medicines checked and audited now, and how would you tell us about any medicines error?
- 05How does the home's size affect daily life, privacy, independence and opportunities to spend time in the local community?
This was a planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions; the previous rating was Good in December 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 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, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but controlled medicines were not stored appropriately.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 and 3 November 2016. Inspectors spoke with seven people living in the home, staff, visitors and managers. They reviewed a care plan, a risk assessment, medicines records, accident reports and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable staff training, kind care, support for people's choices and good access to activities, education, work and healthcare.
There was one medicines concern. Controlled medicines were not stored appropriately, although inspectors found no evidence of risk to people. The manager said action would be taken.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as supportive and compassionate. Inspectors saw staff taking time to talk with people and respecting their privacy and choices.
“People were cared for by staff who were kind and compassionate and who were aware of their care needs.” from the report
Support for independence
The home helped people build skills, find work, attend education and work towards living more independently.
“People were supported by staff to achieve their aspirations and to live a fulfilled lifestyle.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped plan their care and the home adapted support for communication, dementia, end of life care, faith and individual interests.
“The service was adapted to meet people's specific needs and to allow them to be actively involved.” from the report
People's involvement
People took part in care reviews, home meetings and staff recruitment. Their suggestions led to changes such as redecorating bedrooms and arranging trips.
“People were actively involved in having a say about how the home was run.” from the report
Controlled medicines storage
needs fixingInspectors found that controlled medicines were not stored appropriately. They found no evidence of risk to people, and the manager said action would be taken.
“We looked at how medication was stored and found that controlled medicines were not stored appropriately but there was no evidence of risk to people.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after inspectors found that controlled medicines were not stored appropriately?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff for people's one-to-one support and appointments?
- 03How are Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards reviewed, and how are people involved in those reviews?
- 04How would you support someone with dementia, communication needs or end of life care today?
- 05How often are care plans reviewed, and how are people's current goals and wishes recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors spoke with seven people and reviewed one care plan, one risk assessment, medicines records, accident reports and quality audits. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 2016 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 Regent Road
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stoke-on-Trent
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. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.