CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sheringham House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staffing, medicines, safeguarding and environmental risks were generally managed well. However, bowel charts were not always completed, and the shower and shower mat in one bathroom were not clean.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People had detailed care plans, health support and appropriate training around issues such as swallowing difficulties. Nutritional needs were not consistently assessed or managed, including support for people who were overweight.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported communication, independence, personal choices and contact with important people.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had personalised goals and were supported with activities, day centres, hydrotherapy and time in the local community. Relatives said communication and responses to concerns had improved.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management had improved communication, incident reporting and the culture of care. Quality checks were still not effective enough to identify and address problems with nutrition and constipation records.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and better activities, but nutrition and oversight still need improvement, and the home is no longer in Special Measures.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 21 April 2023. Two inspectors spoke with relatives and staff and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection. People were treated with kindness and dignity, had personalised care plans and were supported to take part in activities and community life.
Important problems remained. Staff did not consistently manage food and drink being taken from other people, support healthy weight, or record constipation. The provider remained in breach of Regulations 9 and 17. The home had been in Special Measures since December 2022, but was no longer in Special Measures after this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and be as independent as possible.
“Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to attend day centres, hydrotherapy and activities in the local community. Inspectors found this had improved since the previous inspection.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests.” from the report
Improved incident management
Accidents and incidents were recorded, reviewed and used to identify lessons and actions for staff.
“The registered manager had a system to review all incidents and accidents and take any action that was needed to ensure if there were lessons to be learnt, this was shared with staff.” from the report
Mealtimes and nutrition
seriousSome people took food or drinks from others, and staff were not always confident managing this. Some people were overweight, but there was no clear plan to support a healthy weight.
“The provider had failed to consistently ensure people's nutritional needs were met.” from the report
Incomplete bowel records
needs fixingBowel charts were not always completed. This meant the home could not always be sure that people were receiving consistent support with constipation.
“Staff had not consistently documented people's bowel movements when it was needed.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousManagement systems had not identified or resolved some nutrition and recording problems. The provider remained in breach of the good governance regulation.
“The provider had not ensured governance processes were consistently effective.” from the report
Bathroom cleanliness
minorOne person's shower was not clean and the shower mat was mouldy. The mat was removed and replaced during the inspection.
“In one person's bathroom the shower was not clean and the shower mat was mouldy.” from the report
- 01How do you now stop people taking food or drinks from others during mealtimes?
- 02What individual plans are in place for people who are overweight, and how are these plans reviewed?
- 03How do staff record bowel movements and make sure constipation support is given consistently?
- 04What checks now make sure nutrition, mealtimes and care records meet each person's needs?
- 05What actions from the CQC improvement plan have been completed, and what is still outstanding?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering the home and care provided, including infection prevention and control and action from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 June 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, December 2022
Rated Inadequate and still in special measures; inspectors found serious safety, staffing, care and management failures.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. Inspectors visited on 5 and 7 September 2022, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home was not safe or well-led. There were not enough staff, people missed one-to-one support and outings, and staff did not always follow safe moving and handling or health guidance. Records and systems for risks, incidents, safeguarding and care planning were not reliable.
The home was rated Inadequate overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were Inadequate. Effective and Caring Requires Improvement. These ratings were unchanged from the previous inspection, and the provider remained in breach of several regulations despite an earlier action plan.
Medication improvements
Medication administration records were being completed and opened medicines were dated. Staff also understood the principles for avoiding excessive use of medicines.
“At this inspection we found MAR charts were being completed and open dates being displayed on items such as creams.” from the report
Emergency plans
People had personal emergency evacuation plans explaining how staff should support them to leave safely in an emergency.
“People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place which detailed how to support the person to leave the service if there was an emergency.” from the report
Some positive interactions
Inspectors saw staff being attentive and offering comfort to someone who was unwell.
“One staff member was concerned about someone feeling unwell and they allowed the person to rest on them and be comforted.” from the report
Some improvements to the building
The sensory room, corridors and dining room had been improved since the previous inspection, although further work was still needed.
“The corridors and dining room were bright and fresh from the redecoration that had taken place.” from the report
Unsafe care and health risks
seriousPeople faced risks from poor moving and handling, unclear epilepsy and swallowing guidance, and unsuitable food preparation. Inspectors also found environmental hazards in the garden.
“The provider had failed to ensure people's individual health risks and risks from the environment had been fully assessed and mitigated.” from the report
Insufficient staffing
seriousStaff numbers and skills did not match people's needs. Planned one-to-one and two-to-one support was not always provided, limiting people's safety and opportunities to go out.
“The provider failed to deploy sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced staff.” from the report
Limited activities and personal goals
needs fixingPeople were not consistently supported to pursue hobbies, attend activities or achieve their goals. Staffing shortages were a significant factor.
“People were not being supported to engage in meaningful activities.” from the report
Consent and involvement
seriousRecords did not consistently show mental capacity and best-interest decisions. One person was moved to another bedroom without being involved that morning.
“The service failed to involve a person in a decision that directly affected them.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels, and how do you now make sure every planned one-to-one and two-to-one support hour is provided?
- 02What specific guidance is now in each person's care plan for epilepsy, swallowing difficulties, nutrition and safe moving and handling?
- 03How do you record, review and report accidents, incidents, safeguarding concerns and alleged abuse?
- 04How will you support each person to take part in their chosen activities, hobbies, outings and communication methods?
- 05Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and how are relatives involved in checking that improvements are being made?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with visits to the home on 5 and 7 September 2022. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 December 2022 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 Sheringham House
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2022Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2022Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.