CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Spencer House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some risks had not been assessed, including risks linked to specialist cushions, mattresses and paraffin-based creams. Medicines were generally given safely, and the manager acted during the inspection to address the gaps.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Three people staying for respite did not have care plans, and some staff refresher training was two or three months behind. People received suitable food, health care and support with decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, compassionate and caring. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy and dignity, involving people in decisions and encouraging independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was generally personalised to people's needs and preferences. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager and staff created a positive and open culture, but quality checks had not identified important gaps in risk assessments and care plans. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but gaps in risk checks, care plans and quality monitoring.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. One inspector visited without notice on 7 and 8 July 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine and management records.
People were generally treated kindly and with respect. Staff supported people to eat and drink, access health care and take part in activities. People and relatives said there were enough staff and that they felt listened to.
The inspectors found that some risks had not been assessed properly. Three people staying for respite did not have care plans. Some staff refresher training was two or three months behind, and parts of the building needed repair and redecoration. The manager took action during and after the inspection.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The report identified a breach of Regulation 17 because quality and safety checks had not found these shortfalls.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, dignity and respect.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind, compassionate and caring.” from the report
Enough staff
People and relatives said staff were available and not rushed. Call bells were answered promptly during the inspection.
“People and their relatives told us there were enough staff and they were not rushed.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to stay in contact with others and enjoy activities such as music, walks, knitting and flower arranging.
“People were supported to maintain relationships to avoid social isolation.” from the report
Safe medicine systems
Medicines were stored, managed and disposed of safely. Staff training and competency checks were in place.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Risk checks were incomplete
seriousSome risks had not been assessed or monitored consistently. This included equipment used to help prevent pressure areas and fire risks linked to paraffin-based creams.
“Some risks to people had not been assessed. This was an area for improvement.” from the report
Missing respite care plans
needs fixingThree people staying for respite did not have care plans to guide consistent care. The manager confirmed these were written after the inspection.
“Three people who were living at Spencer House for a period of respite did not have a care plan in place.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousManagement audits did not identify the gaps in risk assessments and care plans. The report says the home's monitoring systems were not effective.
“Systems and processes to monitor the quality and safety of the service were not operated effectively.” from the report
Repairs and redecoration needed
minorSome parts of the home needed repair and redecoration. A refurbishment plan was in place, but work meant people could not use the garden at the time.
“Areas of the service were in need of repair and redecoration.” from the report
- 01Have all current residents, including people staying for respite, got an up-to-date care plan?
- 02How are risks from specialist cushions, mattresses and paraffin-based creams assessed and checked now?
- 03Have all staff completed the refresher training that was two or three months behind?
- 04How are medicine-room temperatures recorded every day and checked by management?
- 05What work has been completed under the refurbishment plan, and when will the remaining repairs and garden work be finished?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, as well as infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 August 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.
Every inspection of Spencer House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 May 2021.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.