CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Station Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were safe, with risks assessed and reviewed, enough staff available, suitable recruitment checks and safe medicines arrangements. Inspectors noted limited positive risk assessments to help people try new experiences.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supervision, obtained consent and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People's nutrition, hydration and health needs were supported, although one mealtime interaction did not provide kind and caring support.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and had warm, caring relationships with them. People were offered choices and relatives were welcome, but some daily records were left unsecured in a communal area.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People's routines reflected their wishes, relatives were involved where appropriate, and people were supported to access shops, church, meals and other local activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was described as open and well managed. There were regular checks, staff meetings, feedback surveys and an improvement plan, with action taken when issues were found.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Station Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some minor practices needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 November 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with two people and five staff, later spoke with two relatives, and reviewed care, medicines, training and quality records.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines management, suitable care plans, good health support and respectful relationships. People were offered choices and supported to follow their own routines and take part in local activities.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good. Inspectors did identify some areas to improve, including positive risk-taking, infection control practice, the way one person was supported with food, and keeping daily records secure.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and promote safety. Medicines were stored, managed and checked appropriately.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs and promote their safety.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and built positive relationships. People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff.
“Staff had developed positive and caring relationships with people they clearly knew well.” from the report
Personalised routines
Care plans reflected people's communication, preferences and needs. Staff arranged daily routines around what people wanted.
“People's daily routines were arranged around their wishes and needs.” from the report
Choice and community life
People were offered choices and supported to take part in activities and outings in the local area.
“People were supported to access the neighbourhood village shops, attend church services, go to feed the ducks and go out for meals locally.” from the report
Open management
Staff and relatives felt able to raise concerns. The home used checks, meetings and surveys to monitor and improve care.
“There was an open and respectful culture in the home and relatives and staff were comfortable to speak with the registered manager if they had a concern.” from the report
Positive risk-taking
needs fixingRisk assessments covered safety risks well, but there were limited assessments helping people weigh up benefits and risks when trying new experiences. The manager said this was already being improved.
“However, we noted there were limited positive risk assessments to empower people to explore new experiences by weighing up the potential benefits balanced with the possible risk.” from the report
Infection control practice
minorA staff member carried laundry in their arms rather than using the available laundry baskets and red bags. The manager said further training would be provided.
“We observed a staff member walk through the dining area holding a person's laundry items in their arms.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingMost mealtime support was calm and patient, but inspectors saw one staff member talking to other staff while helping a person eat. The manager said this would be addressed.
“However, we noted one staff member supporting a person to eat whilst turning and talking with other staff members.” from the report
Daily records not secured
minorSome daily records were left on a sideboard in a communal area rather than being put away. Staff were reminded about keeping them secure.
“When we arrived at the service we noted that some people's daily records were on a sideboard area, not shut away.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the positive risk assessments since the inspection, and how are people supported to try new experiences safely?
- 02What training and checks are now used to make sure laundry is transported in line with infection control practice?
- 03How do managers observe and improve the way people are supported during meals?
- 04How are daily care records kept secure when staff need to use them in communal areas?
- 05How are people involved in choosing and meeting candidates for staff roles now?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five key questions, with observations, interviews and reviews of care, medicines, training and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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 Station Road
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2017Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.