CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Saresta and Serenade
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, safeguarding, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were managed safely. Equipment was checked and incidents were reviewed for learning.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training and supervision, and worked with health and social care professionals. People's nutrition, health needs, consent and access to suitable facilities were supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff had positive relationships with people and respected their privacy, dignity, independence and choices. Relatives were consulted about people's needs and routines.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around individual needs and preferences. People took part in activities at home and in the community, and there was a complaints procedure.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was visible and understood their responsibilities. Audits, staff meetings, feedback and incident reviews were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Saresta and Serenade is rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support with effective management.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 7 February 2019. One inspector met all eight people living in the home, observed how staff supported them, spoke with two relatives and a health professional, and checked care, staff and management records.
The inspectors found Good care in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found that risks and medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, people's health and food needs were met, and people were treated with respect.
People had care plans based on their individual needs and were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. The home had systems for complaints, audits and learning from incidents. It was also clean and suitable for the people living there.
Safe support
The home had systems to reduce avoidable harm. Staff understood safeguarding, risks were recorded, and equipment was checked.
“Staff were available to support people when needed and robust systems were in place to recruit staff safely.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices about their daily lives and were encouraged to do things for themselves.
“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
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw respectful and compassionate interactions. Staff knew people well and supported their privacy and dignity.
“There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the service and people and staff shared positive relationships.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People chose activities at home and in the community, including shopping, college, swimming, discos and trampolining.
“People had the opportunity to participate in activities that were meaningful and that they chose.” from the report
Monitoring and improvement
The management team used audits, feedback and incident reviews to identify shortfalls and make improvements.
“There continued to be a programme of audits which were used to monitor the service provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you communicate with and involve my relative if they cannot verbally describe their experience?
- 02How are my relative's medicines, including any medicines taken as required, reviewed and recorded?
- 03What activities would be meaningful for my relative, and how would you support them to access the community?
- 04How would you respond if my relative's health needs changed or they needed help from health professionals?
- 05How are relatives' views used in care planning and in improving the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five key questions assessed; the home did not provide nursing care. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 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.
Every inspection of Saresta and Serenade
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 July 2012.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.