CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 30 Norbins Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention arrangements, including testing, visiting, admissions, hygiene and outbreak planning. They were only somewhat assured about PPE being used safely and effectively.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, July 2021
SENSE - 30 Norbins Road was inspected but not rated; infection control was generally strong, but PPE procedures needed improvement.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 June 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than the full quality of care.
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy. Staff had infection control training, testing was taking place, visits followed guidance, and there were plans for managing an outbreak and admitting someone safely.
Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements. However, they were only somewhat assured about PPE use. Staff left one room before removing PPE, and there were no foot-operated clinical waste bins or PPE stations outside bedrooms.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four areas.
Infection control training
All staff had received infection prevention and control training, including training on putting on and removing PPE.
“All staff had received IPC training, including how to safely put on and take off PPE such as gloves, aprons, and face coverings.” from the report
Clean premises
The home was clean and tidy. Cleaning included disinfecting frequently touched areas and steam cleaning soft furnishings.
“The home was clean and tidy. Staff were responsible for keeping the premises clean.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
The home had a clear visitors policy and provided a summer house because bedrooms did not allow for social distancing.
“The provider's visitor's policy was clear and in line with national guidance.” from the report
Outbreak planning
There was a plan for managing a pandemic, including zoning the home and contacting key organisations.
“There was a contingency plan in place that described key people to be contacted in the event of a pandemic.” from the report
PPE removal and disposal
needs fixingStaff left one room before removing PPE. Bedrooms did not have foot-operated clinical waste bins or PPE stations outside them, which could increase the risk of spreading infection.
“Peoples bedrooms did not have foot operated bins to dispose of clinical waste and there were no PPE stations kept outside of bedrooms.” from the report
Staff changing clothes
needs fixingStaff put on PPE at the entrance but did not change into fresh clothes before starting work. The team leader said this would be reviewed.
“When staff came on shift, they sanitised their hands, recorded their temperatures and put on personal protective equipment (PPE) at the front entrance.” from the report
- 01Have you now provided foot-operated bins for clinical waste in people's bedrooms?
- 02Where are PPE stations located, and when do staff remove PPE after providing personal care?
- 03Do staff now change into fresh clothes in a separate area before entering the home?
- 04How do you check that staff follow PPE and hand hygiene procedures consistently?
- 05What infection control arrangements are currently used for visitors and new admissions?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other care areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 July 2021 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, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas they assessed.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 11 and 14 December 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with one person, four staff members and the registered manager, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records, rotas and quality checks.
The home supported four people. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safeguarding training and detailed risk assessments. Medicines were managed safely, and staff had the training and knowledge needed to support people's health, food and communication needs.
Inspectors saw kind and respectful care. People were involved in their care and daily choices, including activities, household tasks and contact with family and the community. Care plans were personalised and kept up to date.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection, published on 10 March 2016.
Safe staffing and risk management
The home had enough staff and clear risk assessments covering areas such as nutrition, hydration, epilepsy and choking. Staff understood how to keep people safe.
“People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw a cheerful atmosphere and staff who knew people's needs and preferences. People's privacy, dignity and confidentiality were respected.
“We observed people were treated with kindness and care by staff.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how people communicated and what their actions or body language meant. Information was provided in formats people could use, including braille.
“People's communication needs were known and understood by staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in care reviews and daily decisions. They were supported to take part in cooking, cleaning, activities, family visits and community projects.
“People were encouraged to do what they could for themselves including participating in cooking and cleaning.” from the report
Open management
Staff said management listened to suggestions and supported learning. Audits, staff meetings and shared practice were used to improve care.
“There were effective quality assurance systems to monitor care and plans for on-going improvements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's risks if their health or behaviour changed?
- 02How would you support my relative to communicate their wishes, especially if they could not communicate verbally?
- 03What training would staff have for my relative's specific health needs, such as epilepsy, choking or dietary needs?
- 04How would you involve my relative in care reviews and decisions about daily activities?
- 05How would you support my relative to keep in touch with family, attend healthcare appointments and take part in community activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, accommodation and management of the home, covering all five CQC questions; most people could not verbally give their views, so inspectors also used observations and discussions with staff. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 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 30 Norbins Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 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.