CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Southminster Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, testing, protective equipment, visiting arrangements and outbreak planning were in place. The provider also had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not rated. The report did note that staff supported people to stay in touch with families and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures. The first visit was unannounced on 31 January 2022. Inspectors returned to continue the inspection after staff sickness affected the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, following social distancing and shielding guidance, and arranging testing. They were also assured that visits were being facilitated in line with current guidance.
The report describes staff supporting people to keep in touch with relatives and the wider community. This included video calls, a visiting pod, letters, parcels and an opera singer visiting from the pod.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a full quality rating for the home. It focused on infection control, visiting and staffing arrangements.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infection, including safe use of protective equipment, testing and outbreak planning.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Family contact
Staff helped people keep in touch with relatives and friends through video calls and a visiting pod designed to reduce infection risk.
“Staff supported people in a person-centred manner to keep in touch with their families and friends, such as through video calls.” from the report
Community links
The home worked with a local organisation to help people stay connected with the outside community when contact was limited.
“This had included arranging for people to receive letters and Christmas parcels and for an opera singer to sing to people from the visiting pod.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you managing staffing pressures when care or domestic staff are absent with COVID-19?
- 02How are visits currently arranged, and is the visiting pod still available if needed?
- 03What testing and protective equipment arrangements are currently in place for staff, visitors and people living in the home?
- 04How would you manage an infection outbreak or a sudden shortage of staff?
- 05How do you help residents keep in touch with their families when normal visits are limited?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures, and it did not provide a full rating for the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, with improvements still needed in risk records and bathing arrangements.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 February 2019. Three inspectors and an expert by experience visited the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, good infection control and staff who were trained and supported. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in February 2018. Inspectors found that earlier improvements had been sustained. They made recommendations to improve formal recording of people's ability to use call bells and to make bathing arrangements more clearly person-centred.
Safe medicines
Only trained and assessed staff managed medicines. Records were accurate, medicines were stored securely and there were no gaps in the administration records checked.
“There were no gaps on people's MAR which showed people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as patient, attentive and caring. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and supporting people's independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, interests, likes and dislikes. The home also offered activities and supported individual interests.
“Assessments of people's needs were personalised to include details of their preferred routines, interests, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Sustained improvement
The home had addressed concerns from the previous inspection. Management support, action plans and quality checks helped maintain the improvements.
“The improvements made which we identified at the last inspection had been sustained.” from the report
Call bell risk records
needs fixingRisk assessments had not been completed for people's ability to use the call bell. Staff knew who needed extra checks, but the inspectors recommended that this was formally recorded.
“Risks assessments associated with people's ability to use the call bell to ring for help had not been completed.” from the report
Bathing choices
needs fixingSome people were unsure whether they could have a bath or shower whenever they chose. The home said there was flexibility, but inspectors said the bathing list was not fully person-centred.
“Whilst people and staff confirmed there was flexibility in terms of bathing arrangements, the practice of having a bathing list did not reflect a person-centred approach.” from the report
- 01How do you formally assess and record whether my relative can use the call bell?
- 02What checks are made for people who cannot use the call bell, and how often are those checks reviewed?
- 03How are bathing and showering preferences agreed with each person, and can arrangements be changed when someone asks?
- 04What activities are available for my relative's interests, abilities and communication needs?
- 05How will you show that the recommendations about call bell records and bathing arrangements have been completed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with the overall rating and each question rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 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 Southminster Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Southminster Residential Home →
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Southminster Residential Home →
- February 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 January 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.