CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 2 Conroy Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff were recruited safely, staffing levels were maintained, medicines were managed appropriately and risks were assessed, although some risk assessments had not reflected recent changes until the manager updated them.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, skills and supervision needed to support people. Health needs were managed with help from other professionals, although records of some best-interest decisions needed to be clearer and were improved after the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to make choices, maintain their independence and take part in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and activities reflected people's interests and preferences. One care plan did not reflect current needs, but it was rewritten during the inspection and inspectors found staff practice matched those needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive, person-centred culture and staff felt supported. However, governance checks had failed to identify the out-of-date care plan and bathroom equipment and flooring issues, so the report made a recommendation about improving these checks.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some care records and bathroom maintenance needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by trained staff, treated with kindness and respect, and helped to make choices, stay independent and take part in community activities.
There were some shortfalls. One care plan was out of date, and a grab rail, bathroom flooring and some records needed attention. The manager dealt with the care plan, risk assessments and bathroom issues during or after the inspection, but the quality checks had not found them.
Kind, respectful staff
People and relatives were positive about the care. Staff knew people's personalities, preferences and support needs, and inspectors saw trusting relationships.
“Staff were kind and caring towards people. People told us the staff were always available to support their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were given when they should be, including clear guidance for medicines used as needed. Staffing levels were maintained and recruitment checks were completed.
“Medicines were managed safely, and risks were assessed.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to have control over their lives, make choices about routines and meals, and remain as independent as possible.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible” from the report
Training and health support
Staff completed induction and ongoing training. The home worked with health and social care professionals when people's needs changed.
“Staff completed a comprehensive induction and received ongoing training to support their role.” from the report
Community and activities
People were supported to build community links and take part in activities suited to their interests and abilities.
“People were supported to make links in the wider community and were prevented from becoming socially isolated.” from the report
Care plan not up to date
needs fixingOne care plan did not reflect the person's current needs. The manager rewrote it during the inspection, and inspectors said there had been no impact because staff were following the person's current support needs.
“One care plan we looked at did not reflect the current needs of the person.” from the report
Bathroom maintenance
needs fixingInspectors found a grab rail that needed replacing and flooring that needed attention in a bathroom. The manager acted immediately and arranged for this to be addressed.
“We did identify one grab rail that needed replacing and flooring that needed attention within a bathroom.” from the report
Checks missed some issues
needs fixingThe home's quality checks had not identified the care-plan recording issue or the bathroom problems. Inspectors recommended seeking guidance on managing governance more effectively.
“However, these systems failed to identify the recording issues we found in one care plan or the equipment and flooring that required in attention in the bathroom.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every care plan reflects a person's current needs?
- 02What was done to replace the bathroom grab rail and repair the flooring?
- 03How do your quality checks make sure equipment and care records are reviewed regularly?
- 04How will you involve my relative in decisions about routines, activities and their care?
- 05How are staff trained and checked to make sure they understand my relative's specific health and communication needs?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care provided and the premises, covering all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a recommendation about controlled-drug storage.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 April 2017. One inspector spoke with managers and support workers, met everyone living in the home, contacted two relatives, observed care and checked care, staff, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks and care plans had been updated, staffing had improved, staff were trained, and people received kind and respectful support.
The inspection found significant improvement since the previous inspection in 2016. The provider had previously breached four regulations, but the report says the improvements had addressed the earlier problems. Inspectors made one recommendation about the safe storage of controlled drugs.
Updated risk plans
Risk assessments and care plans were current and included clear actions for emergencies and individual risks. Staff followed these plans promptly when someone became unwell.
“At this inspection, we saw that risk assessments and care plans were up to date and relevant.” from the report
Improved staffing
The home had stopped using agency staff and had introduced a more flexible staffing system. Inspectors saw that this helped people take part in shopping, visits and other activities.
“The registered manager told us in the PIR that the use of agency staff had been discontinued.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were friendly, respectful and attentive. People could choose where to spend their time and how they wanted support to be given.
“There was a relaxed atmosphere and we observed people looked comfortable and at ease with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans included people's health needs, preferences, communication, activities and personal history. Staff used pictures, symbols and adaptations to support choice and independence.
“The care plans were comprehensive and contained detail about people's health and wellbeing, support plans and risk assessments, finance, daily logs, and food and fluid requirements.” from the report
Strong management improvement
Inspectors found effective checks on the quality and safety of the service. These systems had contributed to improvements across all areas.
“Effective management systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service and we saw these had resulted in significant improvements across all areas of the service provided.” from the report
Controlled-drug storage
needs fixingInspectors found that the way controlled drugs were stored did not meet current requirements. They made a recommendation for the provider to review safe-custody guidance.
“We recommend that the provider reviews best practice guidance on the safe custody of medicines in care homes.” from the report
Accessible complaints information
minorThe complaints procedure was available in easy-read and picture formats, but inspectors discussed displaying it in an accessible format within the home.
“Although the complaints procedure was displayed, we discussed with the registered manager displaying it an accessible format in the service for people who lived there.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the storage of controlled drugs since this inspection?
- 02How do you make the complaints procedure accessible to people living in the home?
- 03How do you make sure each person's risk assessments and care plans remain up to date?
- 04How do you maintain consistent staffing and support people to take part in activities outside the home?
- 05How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about support?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with records checked for two people and three staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 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 2 Conroy Close
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 March 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.