CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Robinson House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found sufficient staff, safe recruitment, safeguarding procedures and risk assessments. They found gaps in records for topical creams, including one person with no record for eight days.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and people received support from health professionals. Not all staff had supervision as often as required by the provider's policy.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke very positively about staff. Inspectors saw kind, calm and respectful support, although staff name badges were still being planned.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Some care records contained conflicting or outdated information that management said would be corrected.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There were audits, meetings and systems to review incidents, complaints and risks. The new manager and provider had an action plan for further improvements, including spending more time in the home and introducing a new care planning process.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some medicines and staff supervision records needing improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 21 and 27 January 2020. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, clean surroundings and good support with health needs, activities and end of life care.
There were some gaps. Records did not always show that topical creams had been applied. Not all staff had supervision as often as the provider's policy required. Some care plans contained information that was no longer up to date. The manager had action plans to address these issues.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were very positive about the care. Inspectors observed staff being attentive, calm and respectful, and supporting people's dignity and independence.
“Staff were attentive to people throughout the inspection and provided support if people became distressed or anxious.” from the report
Strong end of life support
The home had been accredited with the Gold Standard Framework. Inspectors found highly person-centred support that respected people's wishes and involved their families.
“The service had been accredited with the Gold Standard Framework for their end of life care.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join group activities or have individual sessions. The home also supported links with families, local organisations, children and the wider community.
“Planned group activities were organised twice a day, and where people preferred to spend time in their bedroom one to one sessions were organised.” from the report
Good partnership working
Health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about referrals, staff knowledge and how advice was followed.
“Feedback from health and social care professionals was positive and showed that the staff worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure people received good outcomes.” from the report
Topical cream records
needs fixingRecords did not always show that topical creams had been applied as prescribed. One person's cream had no application record for eight days. The manager had started daily checks.
“For another person there was no record their cream had been applied for a period of 8 days.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingNot all staff received supervision as often as the provider's policy required. An action plan was in place to improve this.
“Not all staff had received supervision in line with the provider's policy.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that topical creams are applied and recorded at every required time?
- 02How often will the staff caring for my relative receive supervision, and how do you check that this happens?
- 03How will you make sure care plans are updated promptly when a person's wishes, treatment or risks change?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative, including if they prefer one-to-one time or remain in their bedroom?
- 05How would you support my relative and our family if they needed end of life care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 2020 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, July 2017
Robinson House Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some recording and activity improvements still needed.
Inspectors visited on 23 and 25 May 2017 without telling the home in advance. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, staff records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally felt safe and were supported by kind staff who understood their needs.
The home had improved its medicines systems since the previous inspection, when medicines were a breach of regulations. However, the new electronic system was still being introduced, some topical cream records had gaps, and some people said activities did not meet their needs.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking gently, respecting people's wishes and spending time with them beyond personal care tasks.
“Throughout our inspection, we observed staff interacting with people in a respectful and caring manner.” from the report
Improved medicines practice
The home had addressed the medicines problem found at the previous inspection. Training had been refreshed and an electronic system was being introduced.
“At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the regulation was being met.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans included people's personal histories and specific needs. Staff knew important details about the people they supported.
“People's care plans were person centred in nature.” from the report
Good support for staff
Staff received regular training, supervision and support to complete the Care Certificate and develop their skills.
“Staff were positive about their training and support.” from the report
Open management
The home gathered feedback, investigated complaints and used audits to identify and act on improvements.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Topical cream records
needs fixingInspectors found gaps in records showing when topical creams had been applied. Staff said refusals were not always recorded, and the manager knew this needed to improve.
“On the recording chart there were several days when nothing was recorded.” from the report
Activities did not suit everyone
minorSome people said the activity programme did not meet their needs. The home hoped to improve this after recruiting more staff.
“We did receive feedback from some individuals that the activity programme didn't meet their needs.” from the report
Privacy of rooms
minorSome people said that others sometimes entered their rooms without permission, which made them anxious. The manager said the issue had recently been resolved and checks were made for any continuing concerns.
“We did receive comments from some people that on occasion people living in other rooms would enter their room uninvited and this could make them anxious.” from the report
- 01Has the electronic medicines system now been introduced throughout the home, and how are time-specific medicines checked?
- 02How are refusals or missed applications of topical creams recorded and followed up?
- 03How do you make sure activities match each person's interests, abilities and needs?
- 04What arrangements are in place to stop people entering other residents' rooms without permission?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans and decisions about end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five key questions and updating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 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 Robinson House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 November 2010.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.