CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Serenita
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by safeguarding procedures, risk assessments, infection control arrangements and suitable staff recruitment checks. Medicines were managed safely, although two medicine reviews were overdue and one injection recording issue was identified during the visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans contained detailed information. Staff had relevant induction and training, but some staff wanted more specialist training and appraisals had not been completed for all staff.
- Caring?
- Good
- People spoke positively about the staff and inspectors observed kindness, dignity, privacy and respect. People were supported to make choices and maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and reflected people's needs, histories and preferences. Activities had reduced after the activities co-ordinator left, although staff offered some activities and the manager was recruiting a replacement.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as approachable and quality audits were in place. However, there was no registered manager in post at the time, and residents' meetings were being restarted.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, but activities and some staff processes needed attention.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 11 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with 10 people, five staff and several professionals. They observed a mealtime and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and remained Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, detailed care plans and kind, respectful support.
There were some areas to improve. Activities had reduced after the activities co-ordinator left, residents' meetings had not happened regularly, and some staff appraisals and medicine reviews were outstanding. The manager was also not yet registered with the CQC.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw that staff had time to talk with people. Recruitment checks had also been completed before staff worked unsupervised.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff were not rushed in their duties and had time to sit and chat with people.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, records created an audit trail and staff had training and competency checks. The inspection observed safe medicine administration.
“The receipt, administration and disposal of medicines were recorded electronically on a medicine management system (EMAR).” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect, including respecting privacy in bedrooms and bathrooms.
“We saw staff treat people with kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, risks, preferences and needs. Staff knew people well and supported independence and choice.
“People were encouraged to be as independent as they could be.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits covering areas such as medicines, health and safety, the environment and care plans. Actions for improvement were recorded.
“The provider had a system in place to monitor the quality of the service staff delivered to people.” from the report
Reduced activities
needs fixingPeople said activities had reduced substantially after the activities co-ordinator left. The manager was recruiting a replacement, but families should check what is now available.
“There used to be lots of activities to do but now there are none, nothing to do at all except sit in my room and read.” from the report
Staff appraisals and specialist training
needs fixingStaff had supervision and general training, but not all had received an annual appraisal. Some staff also said more training in challenging behaviour would help them.
“I had supervision recently and another one is booked, but I've never had an appraisal in six years” from the report
Medicine records
minorThe position of an insulin injection was not being recorded, although the manager started recording this during the inspection. Two medicine reviews due in September 2018 had also not yet been completed.
“It was noted that the position of the injection was not being recorded.” from the report
Registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. The manager from another service intended to apply to register for this home.
“The service did not have a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What activities are now available each week, and how are residents involved in choosing them?
- 02Are residents' meetings now taking place regularly, and how are people who do not attend able to give their views?
- 03Have all staff received their appraisals and any further training in challenging behaviour?
- 04How are medicine reviews tracked to make sure they are completed on time?
- 05Has the manager applied to become registered with the CQC?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 2018 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 Serenita
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North 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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.