CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Silversprings
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, regular risk assessments, safe medicine systems and effective infection control. One medicine error had occurred in the previous year, but no harm was caused and action was taken.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training, supervision and support. People were supported with nutrition, healthcare, communication needs and lawful consent arrangements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people’s preferences, supported religious and cultural needs and promoted independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s current needs. People were supported with activities, community access and technology that helped them be more independent.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found good oversight, regular audits, staff meetings and feedback systems. The provider promoted an open culture and worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a recent staffing challenge and one medicine error that caused no harm.
This was a planned inspection on 21 March 2019. The inspection team reviewed records, medicines, staff training, care plans and the home’s environment. They observed care and spoke with people, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional.
The home supported nine people with a learning disability and/or autism. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control and care that promoted choice, independence and community activities. Staff knew people’s needs and communication styles well.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service met legal requirements and that people’s outcomes and experiences were consistently good at the time of the inspection.
Respectful and kind staff
Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that staff knew people’s needs, preferences and communication styles. Relatives and a healthcare professional also described staff as respectful and considerate.
“It was evident that their manner as a staff team puts [people] at ease.” from the report
Choice and independence
The home supported people to make choices, take part in everyday tasks and use technology. People were also helped to access activities and the local community.
“This use of technology enabled the person to retrieve this information without the need of staff support, enabling them to be more independent.” from the report
Good understanding of people’s needs
Staff understood people’s individual needs and preferences, including complex communication, cultural and religious requirements. Support plans reflected this information.
“Staff, and the registered manager, showed us that they knew people's needs and preferences well.” from the report
Strong management checks
The provider used audits, reviews, staff meetings and feedback to monitor the home. Inspectors found good oversight and a focus on improving people’s outcomes.
“The provider had good oversight of the service and promoted effective monitoring and accountability.” from the report
Recent staffing difficulty
needs fixingThe provider said the home had recently experienced staff leaving without notice. Inspectors noted improvement and were told that the home was fully staffed at the time of the visit.
“The provider told us the service had been through a challenging time in recent months due to staff leaving their job roles without notice.” from the report
One medicine error
seriousInspectors found one medicine error in the previous year. The home took appropriate action and no harm was caused, but families should ask what changes followed.
“We found there had been one medicine error in the past year.” from the report
Untidy front exterior
minorThe front of the property needed redecoration and a decorative canopy was broken. The provider said quotes for repairs and redecoration had been obtained.
“The front of the property required redecoration and a decorative canopy was broken.” from the report
- 01How have you kept staffing levels stable since the recent period when staff left without notice?
- 02What caused the medicine error found in the previous year, and what checks were changed afterwards?
- 03How do you support people who have complex communication needs to make choices about their care?
- 04How do you make sure people continue to take part in activities and use the local community?
- 05Has the broken canopy and front-of-house redecoration been completed?
This was a planned inspection covering the care provided, the premises and all five CQC questions; all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 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.
Every inspection of Silversprings
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 April 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.