CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Somerset House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including the use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, admissions and visiting arrangements. They also asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Somerset House: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 26 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected people.
The home had a separate visiting room with a screen and entrance for relatives. Staff used protective equipment correctly, visitors followed testing, vaccination, hygiene and protective equipment requirements, and the home was clean.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safe family visits
The home created a designated visiting room so relatives could see people safely and in line with government guidance.
“The provider introduced a designated visitors' room that was divided by a screen and had a separate entrance for visitors.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had received infection control training and were observed using protective equipment correctly.
“All staff had received training and followed correct infection control and were observed using appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and fresh, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The service was clean and fresh, the staff carried out a number of additional tasks which included additional cleaning of any regular touchpoint surfaces.” from the report
Testing and vaccination checks
The home had arrangements for visitor testing and vaccination checks, and followed regular COVID-19 testing for staff and residents.
“There were safe arrangements in place for both professionals and relatives visiting the service, including a confirmed negative result of a lateral flow device test (LFD) and the requirement to show a COVID-19 vaccination pass.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are relatives able to visit now, and is the designated visiting room still available?
- 02What arrangements are currently in place if staff shortages or COVID-19-related staffing pressures occur?
- 03How are staff, residents and visitors tested for COVID-19 now?
- 04How do you check that visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 05How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and how is this checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Somerset House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and clear improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating, although some records still needed more detail.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 28 and 29 January 2020. One inspector spoke with five people living at the home, one relative, the provider, the registered manager and seven staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints, incidents and audits, and contacted four health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe, staff were available, medicines were generally managed safely, and people's healthcare and daily choices were supported.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Earlier breaches about safe care and treatment and good governance had been resolved. Inspectors still found some issues to address, including incomplete medicines signatures and care records that did not always contain enough detail.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe with staff. Risk assessments, emergency evacuation plans and safety checks were in place.
“People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff's kindness, patience and respect. Staff supported people's dignity, independence and choices.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Good activities
The home offered a range of activities and had links with local organisations. Activities were shaped around people's interests and preferences.
“There were a range of activities scheduled throughout the week which people could attend if they chose.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had strengthened its systems for monitoring safety and care after the previous inspection. Managers also spent time speaking with people and observing care.
“There were now effective systems in place to monitor standards and address shortfalls.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome handwritten medicines entries were not always signed or double-signed. The home said it would address this.
“The medicines administration records (MARs) contained some handwritten entries. These were not always signed and doubled signed by staff to ensure their accuracy.” from the report
Healthcare records
minorRecords of some appointments arranged by relatives were not always kept in care files. The home said these would be recorded in the health professional log.
“Some people's relatives arranged appointments for their family members. Records of these visits were not always kept in people's care files.” from the report
DoLS application
needs fixingInspectors identified one person who needed a DoLS assessment because of a change in their health needs. The manager said an application would be submitted.
“We identified one person required a DoLS assessment due to a change in their health needs.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every handwritten medicines entry is signed and double-signed correctly?
- 02How often are care plans reviewed, and how do you record the person's individual preferences and routines?
- 03How are healthcare appointments arranged by relatives recorded and shared with staff?
- 04Has the required DoLS application been submitted, and how is the person's care kept within the law while it is being considered?
- 05How are end of life wishes recorded with enough detail to guide staff?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five CQC questions; all five ratings were given as Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 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.
Every inspection of Somerset House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of North Somerset
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 £1,050 to £1,320 a week. 19 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.