CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Shaftesbury Keefield
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood risks, medicines were managed safely and there were enough suitable staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report used the previous rating when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors did observe positive relationships and respectful support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. The report used the previous rating when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were responsive and there was a positive, open culture. Some provider audits needed strengthening because they had not identified environmental issues.
What inspectors found, December 2023
Livability Keefield is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, with some environmental checks needing improvement.
The CQC carried out an unannounced focused inspection on 1 and 14 December 2023. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable safeguarding arrangements and detailed risk plans. People had positive relationships with staff, and staff supported choice, independence and community involvement.
The inspectors found a few environmental issues. Wardrobes were not fully secured to the wall and a crash mat was damaged. The manager dealt with these issues after the inspection, but some provider checks had not identified them.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment checks included references, identity checks and criminal record checks.
“There was enough staff to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Only trained and competent staff administered medicines, which were stored safely.
“People were supported to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Positive relationships
People had good relationships with staff. Support promoted people's strengths, independence, choices and meaningful everyday activities.
“Observations in the care home were positive and people had good relationships with staff at the service.” from the report
Respect and equality
People were treated equally and staff considered their abilities, lifestyles and beliefs.
“People were respected and treated equally regardless of their abilities, lifestyle, and beliefs.” from the report
Open management
Managers listened to people, relatives and staff, and relatives said they could raise concerns and have them addressed.
“The management team engaged with people, relatives, and staff, listening to them, and involving them in decisions about the service.” from the report
Environmental checks
needs fixingSome provider audits did not identify that wardrobes were not fully secured to the wall or that a crash mat needed replacing. The wardrobe issue was completed after the inspection, and a new crash mat was ordered.
“Some provider audits needed strengthening to ensure all areas were being effectively monitored.” from the report
Unsecured wardrobes
needs fixingWardrobes were not fully secured to the wall during the inspection. The manager confirmed this was completed afterwards to improve safety.
“We identified wardrobes were not fully secured to the wall.” from the report
Damaged crash mat
needs fixingA crash mat used by one person was damaged in places, which could make cleaning difficult. A replacement was ordered after the inspection.
“A crash mat a person used was damaged in some areas which may present an issue when cleaning.” from the report
- 01Have all the wardrobes now been secured to the wall, and how was this checked?
- 02Has the damaged crash mat been replaced, and what is the current cleaning and safety arrangement?
- 03What changes have been made to provider audits so environmental problems are identified sooner?
- 04What were the previous ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
- 05How will you support my relative's choices, independence and access to activities outside the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 2023 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, February 2018
Shaftesbury Keefield was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one medicines-record issue.
The unannounced inspection took place on 12 January 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with people and staff, and reviewed care records, staff records, medicines, complaints, accidents, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine administration, suitable risk assessments, kind relationships and care plans based on people's needs and choices.
People had support to communicate, eat and drink, stay healthy and take part in activities and trips. The home remained Good, which was the same rating as at the previous inspection.
There was one shortfall. Documentation was not fully completed to show that giving one person's medicines in food had been agreed in their best interests. The missing documentation was sent to CQC after the inspection.
Staffing and safety
People had one-to-one staffing at all times, and inspectors found enough staff available to meet their needs. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“People had one to one staffing at all times.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, respect and compassion. Inspectors saw positive interactions that supported people's wellbeing.
“We saw people looked relaxed, comfortable and at ease in the company of staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities and outings connected to their interests, including shopping, cinema trips and music therapy.
“People living at the service continued to participate in a range of activities” from the report
Listening and improvement
The home gathered views from people, families, staff and health professionals. Its audits and improvement plans were used to identify and address changes.
“The registered manager sought feedback about the quality of the service provided from people and/or family members, staff and visiting health professionals.” from the report
Incomplete best-interest records
needs fixingFor one person receiving medicines in food, the required documentation was not fully completed to show that the decision was made in their best interests. The documentation was sent to CQC after the inspection.
“the registered manager had not fully completed all the documentation required” from the report
- 01How are decisions about giving medicines in food now recorded and reviewed?
- 02How do you make sure people who cannot fully verbalise their views can communicate choices and concerns?
- 03How are activities and trips chosen and changed when a person's interests or needs change?
- 04How are relatives involved in care reviews and decisions about future or end of life care?
- 05What actions were completed after the medicines documentation issue identified at the inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 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 Shaftesbury Keefield
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
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.