CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Spion Kop Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Spion Kop Care Home rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a mental capacity recording issue addressed during the inspection.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection. One inspector visited and later contacted staff by telephone. Inspectors spoke with all six people living there, three staff members and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were supported to manage risks, take medicines safely, develop life skills and access health care. Staff were described as kind, respectful and supportive of people's independence.
Inspectors found that the system for assessing people's mental capacity before asking them to sign written consent was not effective. The registered manager acted during the inspection and introduced an improved way to record these assessments.
Safe support
Inspectors found effective systems for safeguarding, risk management and medicines. Staffing was increased when needed to support people in the community.
“There were robust systems in place for the management of people's medicines.” from the report
Kind relationships
People described staff as kind and respectful. Staff understood people's needs and preferences and had developed trusting relationships.
“Staff had formed trusting relationships with people they supported and treated them equally.” from the report
Recovery and independence
Staff supported people to build confidence, develop life skills and work towards personal goals. People were encouraged to access the community, education and work opportunities.
“Staff understood the importance of mental health recovery and supported people to learn and maintain life skills.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's strengths, independence levels and goals. People were involved in planning and reviewing their own care.
“People received a very good standard of person-centred care.” from the report
Open management
The manager was described as supportive and approachable. Audits, action plans, surveys and people's feedback were used to improve the home.
“There was a good standard of governance.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingThe home did not have an effective system to make sure people's mental capacity was assessed before they were asked to sign written consent. The manager introduced an improved recording process during the inspection.
“The registered manager did not have an effective system in place to ensure that people's mental capacity was assessed in line with principles of the MCA before they were asked to sign written consent.” from the report
- 01How are mental capacity assessments now completed and recorded before someone is asked to sign consent?
- 02How will you support my relative to develop independence and mental health recovery goals?
- 03How do you decide when staffing numbers need to increase to support people in the community?
- 04How will my relative be involved in care plan reviews and monthly house meetings?
- 05How will you support my relative to access health professionals, education, work or community activities?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous rating was published on 24 January 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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, January 2017
Rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because of medicines and care-record issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 December 2016. One inspector and one expert by experience visited. They spoke with five people and three staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines, training, recruitment and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors rated Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led as Good. People said they felt safe, staff were kind, and their choices, privacy, independence and personal goals were respected.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Most medicines were managed safely, but one medicine was past its recommended use-by date and another had an unclear label. One person's care records did not fully describe how staff monitored a potential risk.
The report also found that the home did not yet have a process for recording mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions if these were needed in future. The manager agreed to put this in place.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind, listened to them and respected their privacy, dignity and choices.
“People were supported by staff who encouraged them to talk if they wanted to, and listened to them when they did.” from the report
Personalised support
People helped write their care plans and were supported with their own goals, interests and daily choices.
“People contributed to their care and were supported to follow their interests.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, support appointments and provide activities.
“Sufficient staff were deployed to meet people's needs safely and provide the support they required.” from the report
Open leadership
The manager was approachable and staff felt supported. The home gathered views from people, staff and visitors and used these to look for improvements.
“The service was managed with an open and approachable management style.” from the report
Medicine labelling and dates
needs fixingOne liquid medicine had passed its recommended use-by period. Another medicine had a worn label, so the person it was prescribed for and the instructions were not visible.
“We found one bottle of medicine should have been disposed of one week before our inspection” from the report
Incomplete risk records
needs fixingStaff were monitoring a potential risk, but the person's risk assessment and care plan did not explain their observations and reporting in enough detail.
“The risk assessment and care plan for this did not contain sufficient detail to reflect what staff were doing to observe and report in this area.” from the report
Capacity decision records
minorThere was no process for recording mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions if someone later lacked capacity to make a decision.
“The service did not have a process in place to record assessments of people's capacity in relation to any best interests decisions that may have to be taken.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the out-of-date medicine and the medicine with the worn prescription label were found?
- 02How do you now check that all medicines are clearly labelled and within their recommended use-by dates?
- 03Has the person's risk assessment and care plan been updated to record how the potential risk is monitored and reported?
- 04Is there now a process for recording mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality and safety of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 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 Spion Kop Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.