CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Salisbury House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, suitable risk assessments and effective infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs and choices were assessed, and they had access to healthcare and support with food, communication and independence. Inspectors recommended improving staff access to appropriate specialist qualifications.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and familiar with people’s communication needs. People were supported to make choices and maintain their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people were supported with their interests, relationships, communication and community activities. Inspectors found that daily records needed more detail and that some planned activities did not happen because there were not enough drivers.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team promoted a person-centred culture and used audits, feedback and meetings to improve the service. Inspectors also found that end-of-life planning had not been discussed with people and relatives.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Salisbury House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements needed in training and end-of-life planning.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered in December 2020. The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 and 16 May 2022. Inspectors spoke with relatives, staff and health professionals, observed people and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, clean premises and good support for people’s communication, choices, health, independence and community activities.
The report also identifies some areas to improve. Staff did not always have in-depth qualifications for specialist autism care. Daily records needed more detail, some activities were affected by a lack of staff able to drive, and end-of-life wishes had not been discussed or planned with people and relatives.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. Relatives said people were happy and well cared for.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make daily choices, try new experiences and take part in activities in the community.
“The service supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence be independent and they had control over their own lives.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff on shifts and found that medicines were recorded and given safely.
“People received their prescribed medicines safely. Staff told us and evidence showed that medicines were documented, administered and disposed of in accordance with current guidance and legislation.” from the report
Positive management culture
Staff felt supported and able to raise concerns. The provider used audits, family meetings and feedback to guide improvements.
“People's needs and wishes came first, and staff both told us this and demonstrated it in the way they supported people.” from the report
Specialist staff qualifications
needs fixingNot all staff had in-depth autism training or external health and social care qualifications. Inspectors recommended that the provider consider how to improve this.
“This put people at risk from receiving support from staff who were not trained to meet their specific needs.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingNo-one was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection, but staff had not been trained or supported to discuss future wishes with people and relatives.
“People and relatives were not supported to discuss their views and wishes on care at the end of life if they wished to do so.” from the report
Some activities did not happen
needs fixingRelatives said planned activities were sometimes cancelled because there were not enough staff on shift who could drive the provider’s vehicles.
“Two relatives expressed concern that there were times when planned activities did not happen because there were not enough staff on shift who could drive the provider's vehicles.” from the report
Daily records needed more detail
minorRelatives said the newly introduced online records needed more detail to be useful. The manager had discussed this with staff.
“This (access) is very new, and we feel there needs to be more detail (in the records) for this to be useful.” from the report
- 01What specialist autism training and recognised health and social care qualifications have staff completed since this inspection?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough trained drivers on each shift so planned activities can take place?
- 03What has changed in the detail and usefulness of the daily records available to relatives?
- 04How will you discuss and record each person’s end-of-life wishes with them and their relatives?
- 05How do you make sure agency staff understand each person’s individual communication needs?
This was the home’s first unannounced inspection and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 2022 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 Salisbury House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 December 2020.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.