CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Renaissance Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and appropriate safeguarding arrangements. Medicines were ordered, stored, given and monitored safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's physical, mental and social needs were assessed. Staff had relevant training and worked with health professionals to support people's health and wellbeing.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People and families were involved in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and preferences. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, work and community involvement.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found committed leadership, an open culture and effective communication. Audits, feedback and meetings were used to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Renaissance Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, with the Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 24 June 2019. One inspector met 10 people, spoke with four of them, observed care, spoke with staff, relatives and health professionals, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems, clean and well-maintained surroundings, and good support with health care.
People were supported to make choices, build skills and become more independent. They took part in activities, work and community life that mattered to them. Staff used personalised communication, including pictures, signs and braille, where needed.
The previous inspection rated Safe as Requires Improvement because risk records and medicine information were not always complete. Inspectors said these issues had been addressed, so Safe was now rated Good. The other four ratings remained Good.
Promoting independence
People were supported to make choices, gain skills and take part in everyday tasks, work and activities. Support was adapted to their abilities and preferences.
“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
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and built caring relationships. Inspectors saw people being listened to and supported with dignity.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion. People spent time in the community and at the home, doing activities and work they enjoyed and had chosen.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine systems were organised and staff were trained. People received the right medicines on time without being rushed.
“There were effective systems to ensure medicines were ordered, stored, administered and monitored safely, including pro-active medicine reviews with GPs.” from the report
Good communication
Staff used personalised communication methods so people could understand information and express choices. This included picture boards, signs, picture menus and braille menus.
“Information was easily available so people had the information to make informed choice, stay safe or to reduce anxieties about health professional appointments.” from the report
Strong leadership
The inspection found committed leaders, stable staffing and good systems for sharing information and checking care quality.
“There was an audit framework which reported on safety and quality.” from the report
Larger than current best practice guidance
minorThe home was registered for and supporting 17 people. Inspectors said this was larger than current best practice guidance, although they found the building and location helped reduce any negative impact.
“At the time of this inspection 17 people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01How would you assess and review the risks that are specific to my relative, while still supporting their independence?
- 02How will you record, administer and review my relative's medicines, including when they are away from the home?
- 03How will you communicate with my relative if they cannot communicate easily using speech?
- 04What activities, work or community opportunities could my relative take part in, and how would their choices be recorded?
- 05How would you support my relative if they needed end of life care in the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; the inspector met 10 people, spoke with four, observed care and reviewed selected care, medicine, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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, November 2016
Renaissance Residential Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found safety shortfalls in medicines records, risk assessments and care guidance.
Inspectors visited without notice on 4 and 5 October 2016. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and other professionals. They reviewed care records, staff files, training information and quality checks.
People said they felt safe and were cared for by kind, knowledgeable staff. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good healthcare support, personalised care and activities that reflected people's interests.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe. Some health risks and support for anxiety were not recorded clearly enough. Medicines prescribed for occasional use did not have enough written guidance, and staff had not had regular medicines competency checks.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. However, the quality checks had not found or acted on the safety and record-keeping problems.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff treated them kindly and as equals. Inspectors also saw caring and supportive interactions.
“People were looked after by staff who treated them with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to take part in activities, work, volunteering, hobbies, holidays and community life according to their interests.
“People took part in a range of activities which reflected their interests and wishes.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
People, relatives and staff described the home as welcoming and family-like. Management was described as approachable and supportive.
“There was a positive culture in the service and staff spoke of providing a family home for people.” from the report
Medicines guidance
seriousInstructions were missing for some variable-dose and occasional medicines. This meant staff might not know when or how to give them correctly.
“Records and procedures required to help ensure people's medicines were managed safely were not always in place.” from the report
Incomplete risk and anxiety guidance
seriousSome known health risks were not included in risk assessments. Care plans also did not explain how each person preferred to be supported when anxious, which could lead to inconsistent care.
“Staff understood people's risks related to their health and social care needs and supported them to be as safe as possible, but these were not always recorded in risk assessments.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingThe home's audits had not been completed effectively. They had not led to action on issues including care plans, risk assessments and medicines information.
“However, this had not been completed effectively and few actions to improve the quality of the service had been noted as a result.” from the report
- 01Have the missing instructions for variable-dose and 'as required' medicines now been added?
- 02How often are staff competency checks for medicines administration completed, and can you show the latest records?
- 03Have all health risks, including risks such as aspiration, been added to people's risk assessments with clear staff instructions?
- 04How are staff told about each person's preferred support when they become anxious?
- 05How does the home now check that audits lead to action and that care plans remain up to date?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, based on visits on 4 and 5 October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 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 Renaissance Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Renaissance Residential Home →
- November 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Renaissance Residential Home →
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.