CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Southwold House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but noted medicine-storage and end-of-life planning issues.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector on 9 September 2019. The inspector spoke with one person, two relatives, the manager and three staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff on shift, safe medicine administration at the time of inspection, caring staff who knew people well, personalised support and good systems for checking quality.
There were some issues to watch. The medicine room could become too warm because it had no air conditioning. Some environmental work was still outstanding. The home had not yet discussed people's end-of-life wishes or trained staff in this area, so the inspector made a recommendation.
Personalised lives
People were supported to make choices, develop skills and take part in activities that mattered to them.
“People were encouraged to live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people's needs and communication styles. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and respect.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect and could explain how they should be treated with equality.” from the report
Choice and communication
Staff used different methods, including pictures, to help people express themselves and take part in decisions.
“We saw them communicating effectively to empower people to have maximum choice and control.” from the report
Quality oversight
The manager used audits, staff feedback and service reviews to monitor care and identify improvements.
“Audits were used to review the effectiveness of the service and key areas of the service were reviewed” from the report
Medicine storage
seriousThe medicine room had no air conditioning, so medicines were not always stored at the correct temperature on hot days. There had also been a previous incident involving the wrong medicine, although no harm was found and changes were made.
“The medicine room did not have an air conditioning system.” from the report
End-of-life planning
needs fixingThe home had not discussed people's preferences and choices for end-of-life care. The inspector recommended that this should be addressed, and the manager later provided a new support plan.
“We recommend that the registered provider meets with people to explore their preferences and choices in relation to end of life care, in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Environmental repairs
needs fixingSome parts of the home needed redecorating and a leak had not been fully repaired. The provider said remedial work would be completed within three months.
“Some areas of the service would benefit from improvements being made to the environment.” from the report
Risk checks after changes
needs fixingEnvironmental checks were not always updated after changes. A window change had allowed one person to access the roof area, although inspectors found no evidence of harm.
“These checks had not always been carried out when a change had occurred.” from the report
Family communication
minorSome family and local authority feedback said communication could be better, including involvement in care planning.
“Mixed feedback was given by one family member and the local authority, who felt communication could be improved.” from the report
- 01Has the air conditioning unit now been installed in the medicine room, and how do you check medicine temperatures?
- 02What happened after the previous wrong-medicine incident, and what safeguards are now in place?
- 03Have you discussed end-of-life wishes with each person and their family, and have staff completed the planned training?
- 04Have the leak, redecorating and other remedial work identified by inspectors been completed?
- 05How will you keep families involved in care planning and improve communication with them?
This was a planned but unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided; all five previous Good ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Southwold House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with some capacity records needing review.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 16 January 2017. The inspector spoke with the manager, the provider's representative and three staff. Relatives and professionals were also contacted by telephone, although no healthcare professionals responded.
The home supported three people on the inspection day and was registered for up to 10 people with learning disabilities. Inspectors looked at two people's care and medicines records, recruitment and training records, and the systems used to monitor quality and handle complaints.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The home remained Good since the previous inspection. Inspectors found safe medicines practice, suitable staffing, kind support, personalised care plans and accessible management.
Safe medicines
Medicines were safely received, stored, administered and recorded. Staff competence was checked, and records matched the medicines available.
“Medication administration records were consistently completed and tallied with the medicines available.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans explained people's individual needs and how staff should support independence. Staff knew people's routines and responded to their particular ways of communicating and coping.
“Care plans were written in a person centred way and clarified how people needed to be supported while being empowered to develop skills and maintain independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Relatives and inspectors described staff as warm, friendly and caring. People's privacy and dignity were respected, including in their own bedrooms.
“People's privacy and dignity was respected. Each person had their own bedroom which was treated as their own personal space.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed at home and in the community. Staff also supported contact with relatives.
“People had opportunities to be involved in social activities and leisure pursuits that interested them, both at home and in the community.” from the report
Approachable management
Relatives and staff said the manager was available and listened to suggestions. The home had systems to collect views and monitor quality.
“Staff and relatives told us that the service was well run and that the registered manager was approachable and available.” from the report
Some capacity records were out of date
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments had not been reviewed. The use of a monitoring device was not clearly included in the assessments, although the manager said this would be corrected without delay.
“We noted that some of these had not been reviewed and that the use of a monitoring device to ensure a person's wellbeing was not clearly included in any of the assessments completed.” from the report
Previous delay telling a relative about an accident
needs fixingOne relative said they had not been told promptly about a minor accident. The manager addressed this with staff, and the relative said communication had improved.
“One relative told us that they had been unhappy that they had not been told at early stage about a minor accident a person had.” from the report
- 01Have all mental capacity assessments been reviewed since this inspection, including the assessment covering the monitoring device?
- 02How will you tell relatives promptly if someone has an accident or other important event?
- 03How are staffing levels worked out for each person, including their one-to-one funded hours?
- 04How do you make sure activities and community opportunities continue to reflect each person's interests?
- 05How can relatives give feedback, and what action will be taken if they raise a concern?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating; three people were living at the home and inspectors reviewed two people's care and medicines records. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 2017 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 Southwold House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.