CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Shaldon House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, clear safeguarding procedures, risk assessments and safe recruitment. Medicines, equipment and emergency arrangements were also checked and found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Previous problems with staff training and supervision had been addressed. Staff had completed or started the required training, received regular supervision and had annual appraisals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed speaking warmly with people and protecting their privacy and dignity. Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication needs and choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were reviewed monthly or when people's needs changed. People were supported with meaningful activities, community outings, family contact and ways to make their views known.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible and supportive management, regular staff meetings and updated quality checks. The provider and manager had followed an action plan to address previous shortfalls.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with previous training and supervision shortfalls addressed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 09 January 2019. The home supported nine people with learning disabilities, with space for 10. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and a health professional, and checked care records, staff files, medicines records and quality checks.
Inspectors found the home safe. There were enough staff, safeguarding procedures, risk assessments, safe medicines systems and appropriate equipment checks. People were supported to access healthcare, eat and drink well, and make decisions as far as possible.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Their care plans reflected their communication needs, preferences and routines. They were supported to take part in activities, keep in touch with family and use the local community.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement because of staff training, supervision and weaknesses in the provider's audits. Inspectors said these problems had been fully addressed at this inspection.
Consistent staffing
The home had a stable staff team and staffing levels were maintained. Inspectors found staff available to support people at home, at mealtimes and in the community.
“There was a stable staff team with a low staff turnover. This meant that people received consistent care and support.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's preferences, routines and communication needs. Staff supported people to make choices and maintain their independence.
“The staff team were caring and committed to meeting the needs of the people who lived at the home.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were offered individual activities, community outings, day centres, holidays and religious activities. The home had an activity co-ordinator and two vehicles.
“People were well supported to take part in meaningful activities that they enjoyed.” from the report
Previous problems fixed
The home had acted on the previous inspection's concerns about staff training and supervision. Inspectors found that these shortfalls had been addressed.
“At this inspection we found that action had been taken and the shortfalls we had found had been fully addressed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw a happy and relaxed atmosphere. Staff protected privacy, supported personal appearance and involved people in decisions about their care.
“People continued to be treated in a kind respectful and dignified way.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure the staffing levels described in the report are still maintained during the day and at night?
- 02How often are staff supervision, appraisals and training checked now that these were previous areas for improvement?
- 03How would you record and review my relative's communication needs, preferences and daily routines?
- 04What activities and community outings could my relative take part in, and how would one-to-one support be arranged?
- 05How are mental capacity decisions, best-interest meetings and any deprivation of liberty applications handled for people who cannot make particular decisions?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; the report contains an inconsistent reference to the inspection year in its summary. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but staff support and management systems needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 14 December 2017. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and health and social care professionals. Records, staffing, training, medicines and quality checks were also reviewed.
Inspectors found the home was safe, caring and responsive. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, people were treated with dignity, and people were supported with activities, family contact and healthcare.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Training, staff supervisions and appraisals were not up to date. The recent change in management had also affected monitoring and records, although the new manager had an action plan to address these issues.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient for people's care, daily activities and social outings.
“Staff told us there was always sufficient staff to keep people safe, support them with their daily living and social activities.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared relaxed with staff. Staff understood their preferences, protected privacy and supported people as individuals.
“People were treated in a dignified, caring manner, which demonstrated that their rights were protected.” from the report
Individual support
People had care plans and were supported with activities, community access, family contact and changing health or personal needs.
“People received care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff giving medicines had training and competency checks. Medicines were stored securely, with clear information about their use and side effects.
“Medicines policies and procedures were followed and medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Training and staff reviews
needs fixingSome mandatory training was overdue. Some newer staff had not completed the care certificate, and regular supervisions and annual appraisals had not been completed.
“This meant the support mechanisms for staff were not in place to ensure they had the skills and knowledge and support to fulfil their roles.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe period without a registered manager affected monitoring of the home. Some policies were from the previous provider, and the new manager was still putting improved systems in place.
“The changes of management have had an impact on the way the service was operating.” from the report
Missing weight records
needs fixingInspectors could not find records showing that people's weights had been checked as expected. The home said people were weighed monthly, but the records could not be located.
“We were unable to find any records of weights.” from the report
Fire drill records
minorThe new manager found that fire drills were not happening at regular intervals and the records did not show who had taken part.
“There was no section to detail who had taken part in a fire drill again this was being addressed by the newly appointed manager.” from the report
- 01How many staff have now completed the overdue mandatory training and the care certificate?
- 02Are staff now receiving regular supervisions and annual appraisals, and can you show us the latest records?
- 03How are people's weights and other health checks recorded and reviewed now?
- 04Has the new manager completed their application to register, and which parts of the action plan are still outstanding?
- 05Are fire drills now held regularly, with a clear record of which staff took part?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five key questions, following a previous focused inspection in November 2016 and a full inspection in January 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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 Shaldon House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementCaring: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 February 2013.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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 £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.