CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Shaftesbury Netteswell Rectory
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable staffing, safeguarding training, risk assessments, safe medicine systems and regular fire safety checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed clearly, care was reviewed, staff were trained and people were supported with food, health care and everyday choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- People appeared comfortable with staff and were treated with dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care and daily lives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans reflected people's needs, interests and goals. People were supported to maintain relationships, join activities and communicate their views.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Audits and quality checks were in place. Staff and people were able to give feedback, and inspectors found a positive, person-centred culture.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Livability Netteswell Rectory was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with the home larger than current best-practice guidance.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 January 2020. One inspector spoke with five people, three staff members and a visiting professional. They reviewed care, medicine and staff records, as well as health and safety information.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems, regular safety checks and staff who understood safeguarding.
People were supported to make choices, build independence, keep relationships and take part in activities. Care plans were personalised and staff knew people well. The home was larger than current best-practice guidance, but inspectors said its design helped reduce any negative impact.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw a calm atmosphere and positive relationships between people and staff. People said they liked living at the home.
“We observed people and staff had developed positive relationships and people seemed comfortable in the company of staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, needs, goals and achievements. Staff reviewed support when people's needs changed.
“Support plans were person-centred and contained detailed background information and clear information about people's current care and support needs.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff with suitable experience and skills. Staffing was adjusted around people's needs and wishes.
“People were supported by enough numbers of staff who had the right mix of experience and skills.” from the report
Home larger than current guidance
minorThe home was larger than current best-practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design helped limit any negative effect on people.
“The design and layout was larger than best practice and not in keeping with registering the right support, however every effort had been made to ensure people had their own personal space which was homely and personal to them.” from the report
Future wishes records
minorNo one was receiving end of life care at the inspection. The provider's audit had identified that people's future wishes should still be recorded, even when they were not ready to discuss them.
“The providers audit had identified that even if people were not ready to discuss their future wishes this should still be recorded.” from the report
- 01How does the home's larger-than-guidance layout affect people's privacy, personal space and daily routines?
- 02How will you record and review my relative's future wishes if they are not ready to discuss them now?
- 03How will my relative be supported to take part in activities, travel and maintain relationships?
- 04How are medicines checked if my relative is being supported to take them independently?
- 05How are staffing levels changed around each person's needs, wishes and activities?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating and all five question ratings were also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 2020 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, July 2017
Shaftesbury Netteswell Rectory was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a registered manager now in place.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 30 June 2017. Inspectors spoke with four people living in the home and three staff members. They reviewed four care records, one recruitment file and records about management and quality checks.
The home supported up to nine adults with learning disabilities, with seven people living there on the inspection day. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicine arrangements and plans to manage risks. People were supported to stay healthy and to make choices.
Inspectors found staff to be caring and respectful. Care plans reflected people's preferences, activities and daily routines. The home had a friendly atmosphere and people were supported to stay independent and take part in activities they chose.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It had met the relevant fundamental standards. At the previous inspection it was also rated Good overall, but there was no registered manager then. A registered manager was now in post.
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including support in the community. Recruitment checks were in place and staff knew how to keep people safe.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and to support them with what they chose to do.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described individual preferences, daily routines and emotional support needs. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“Each care plan was personalised to each individual, contained information to assist staff to provide care and support but also gave information on people's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People had strong relationships with staff and were treated with dignity. The home was described as friendly and homely.
“We observed that people were treated with dignity and respected by the staff.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to attend clubs, appointments, holidays and community activities. Staff encouraged people to do as much as they could for themselves.
“People took part in a variety of activities inside and outside of the service.” from the report
Quality checks
The manager, regional manager and provider carried out audits covering areas such as medicines, health and safety, training and care plans.
“The provider had an effective quality assurance system which included regular audits completed by the registered manager, regional manager and the provider.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How is management cover arranged on the days the registered manager is working at the other service?
- 02How will you keep my relative's care plan up to date, including their likes, dislikes, daily routine and emotional support needs?
- 03How would you support my relative to remain independent while keeping risks as low as possible?
- 04What activities, clubs and community appointments could my relative take part in, and what support would be available?
- 05How do you check medicines, staff training and care plans, and how would you tell us if an issue was found?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and inspectors reviewed selected records and spoke with four people and three staff members. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 2017 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 Netteswell Rectory
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Shaftesbury Netteswell Rectory →
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Shaftesbury Netteswell Rectory →
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 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.