CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tanners Wood
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitor screening, safe admissions, use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found well-prepared infection control arrangements for the designated care setting.
Inspectors visited the home on 24 February 2021. The visit was announced and targeted infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They found good arrangements for visitors, including health screening, temperature checks, guidance and personal protective equipment. They were assured that people were admitted safely and that staff used protective equipment properly.
The home had prepared systems for cleaning, waste, laundry, catering and staff changing areas. It had also planned ways for people to keep in touch with family and friends during isolation.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors were given infection control guidance and protective equipment. Staff also carried out health screening and temperature checks on arrival.
“All visitors were provided with guidance, personal protective equipment (PPE) and a health screening completed.” from the report
Contact with family
The home had prepared telephone and technology-based contact, as well as in-house activities for people staying during isolation.
“The service had prepared ways for people to maintain social contact with family and friends via technology and phone calls” from the report
Protective equipment and cleaning systems
There were designated areas for staff to prepare, supplies of protective equipment, and systems for waste, laundry and catering.
“PPE donning and doffing stations were to be situated throughout the building, with ample PPE supplies available.” from the report
Management checks
The provider had written COVID-19 procedures and was carrying out daily checks and regular infection control audits.
“Management oversight and daily checks, alongside regular infection prevention and control audits were in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Has the planned deep clean been completed, and how often are the premises cleaned now?
- 02How are visitors screened and supported to use protective equipment?
- 03How do you arrange testing and safe admissions for people using the service?
- 04How can residents keep in contact with family if face-to-face visits are restricted?
- 05How often are infection control checks and audits carried out, and what happens if they identify a problem?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control for the designated care setting; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not assess wider aspects of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2021 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 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but leadership and record checks require improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 26 November 2019. One inspector reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records, spoke with a person using the home, staff, relatives and a professional.
The home provides short breaks and respite care for up to eight people with learning or physical disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, supported by trained staff, treated kindly and helped to make choices. Care plans were detailed and reflected people's needs.
The overall rating stayed Good, as did Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The home did not have a registered manager, and checks did not always find gaps in records, medicines documentation, risk plans or emergency evacuation plans.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored and given safely, and staff had medicines training and competency checks.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had positive relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy, independence and choices.
“Staff had developed positive relationships with people and knew how to support them effectively.” from the report
Personalised support
People's care records included their likes, dislikes, routines and support needs. Families were involved in keeping information up to date.
“People's care records were personalised and there was clear information about people's likes and dislikes.” from the report
Communication support
Staff understood how to support people who did not communicate verbally, using pictures, photographs, technology and body language.
“Where verbal communication was limited, staff told us people were supported to use alternative methods.” from the report
Positive relationships with families
Relatives gave positive feedback and said they felt comfortable raising concerns. The home also worked with families and other professionals.
“Relatives were very positive about the way in which the service worked alongside them.” from the report
Leadership arrangements
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the time of inspection. The home was being managed by an interim manager and deputy manager while a new manager was expected to apply for registration.
“The service did not have a manager registered with Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingHandwritten medicines administration records were not always completed in line with good practice. The required two staff signatures were missing in examples inspected.
“These were not consistently completed in line with good practice and this had been not identified by the audits completed.” from the report
Worn building
minorThe home was visibly clean but worn. Hallway carpets were stained and the building needed redecoration, which had been delayed.
“We observed the service to be very worn and in need of redecoration.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now been appointed and registered with CQC?
- 02What action has been taken to improve the handwritten medicines records and ensure all required signatures are present?
- 03Have each person's risk management plan and personal emergency evacuation plan been checked and updated?
- 04How are audits now checking care records, medicines records and follow-up actions?
- 05What progress has been made with replacing the stained hallway carpets and redecorating the building?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 2020 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 Tanners Wood
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
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.