CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Simonsfield Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed through visitor controls, safe admissions, testing, hygiene, outbreak planning and an up-to-date policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Simonsfield Residential Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice and identified resources for further development.
This was an announced inspection on 9 November 2020. It was part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice. Cleaning had increased, staff received daily updates, visitors had their temperatures checked and personal protective equipment was available at bedroom doors.
The inspectors were assured about visitor safety, admissions, testing, hygiene, outbreak management and the infection-control policy. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Cleaning and hygiene
Cleaning schedules had been increased, with extra attention to surfaces considered high risk.
“Cleaning schedules had been increased and particular attention was paid to high risk surfaces.” from the report
Staff information
Staff were briefed each day about coronavirus measures and received updates.
“Staff were briefed daily about COVID-19 measures and provided with updates.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors had their temperatures checked using accurate in-ear thermometers.
“Visitors had their temperatures taken using high-accuracy, in-ear thermometers.” from the report
Protective equipment
Personal protective equipment was available at each bedroom door.
“Supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) were available on each bedroom door.” from the report
Infection controls
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing several important infection risks, including testing and outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Further development
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made since inspectors signposted resources to develop your infection prevention and control approach?
- 02How do you currently prevent visitors from catching or spreading infections?
- 03How are people using the service and staff accessing testing now?
- 04How are cleaning schedules, high-risk surfaces and PPE supplies checked?
- 05What is the current process for preventing or managing an infection outbreak?
This was an announced thematic inspection focused on infection prevention and control; it was inspected but not rated and did not provide a full assessment of the other quality areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 June 2021 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, October 2019
Simonsfield Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with minor concerns about private notes and smokers' wishes.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 21 August 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines and training records, accidents, recruitment information and quality checks. They spoke with five people living in the home, six staff members, two relatives and three community nurses.
The home provided personal care for 36 older people. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings and thorough care plans. People were supported to make choices, follow their interests and stay active in the home and community.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of the inspection. The report also noted two minor issues: daily notes containing personal information were left in the lounge, and some smokers felt their wishes were not considered.
Safe care
Medicines were managed safely, staff understood safeguarding and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“There were enough staff to provide safe, consistent care that met the needs of the people living in the home.” from the report
Kind and personal support
Staff knew people's histories, likes and preferences and used this knowledge to provide individual support.
“There was an exceptionally strong person centred culture.” from the report
Choice and activities
People chose their routines and took part in activities inside and outside the home, including community activities.
“People led their own activities programme and decided whether to participate or not.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was exceptionally clean and well maintained, with dedicated support for cleaning and laundry.
“The environment was exceptionally clean and well maintained.” from the report
Good healthcare records
Records were up to date and helped staff notice changes early and involve healthcare professionals.
“Healthcare records were kept to high standards and staff knowledge of individuals was extremely good.” from the report
Private information
needs fixingInspectors found that personal information in daily notes was not securely stored and had been left in the lounge. The manager addressed this with staff immediately.
“We did discover that personal information contained in the daily notes was not securely stored and were left in the lounge.” from the report
Smokers' wishes
minorPeople who smoked did not feel their wishes had been considered because smoking was not allowed inside the home.
“However, people who smoked did not feel their wishes were considered as there was no smoking in the home.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorFood was fresh, plentiful and varied, but some people said it was not always to their taste. Other options were available.
“Others said that the food was not always to their taste.” from the report
- 01How are daily notes and other personal information kept private now?
- 02How do you support people who smoke, and how are their wishes considered?
- 03What food choices and alternatives are available if a resident does not like the main meal?
- 04How do you make sure care plans and risk assessments stay up to date when people's needs change?
- 05How are people supported to continue activities, clubs and friendships outside the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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 Simonsfield Residential Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Simonsfield Residential Care Home →
- October 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Simonsfield Residential Care Home →
- October 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 October 2018.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Liverpool
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. 83 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“All in all Kama b cared for the owner really well, every aspect of her care was of the highest standard.”
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.