CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Te Hira Care Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. They found arrangements for visitor checks, protective equipment, social distancing, testing, hygiene and outbreak prevention.
- 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?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were protecting people.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 August 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures as part of the CQC's coronavirus review of care homes.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, supporting social distancing, arranging testing and keeping its infection control policy up to date. They also found visitor temperature checks, protective equipment for visitors and separate laundering of clothing and bedding.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a new overall rating or a rating for the other four areas of care.
Visitor protection
Visitors had their temperature recorded and were given protective equipment when they arrived.
“The temperature of visitors was recorded when they arrived at the home.” from the report
Clear PPE arrangements
A colour-coded system showed staff and visitors what protective equipment to wear in different parts of the home.
“A colour coded system informed staff and visitors what personal protective equipment they needed to wear in different areas of the home” from the report
Reduced cross-contamination risk
Clothing and bedding were laundered separately for each person.
“People's clothing and bedding were laundered individually to reduce the risks of cross contamination.” from the report
Pandemic planning
The management team were preparing for a possible second wave by buying extra protective equipment and food supplies.
“The management team were proactively preparing for a possible second wave of the pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors' temperatures and protective equipment managed now?
- 02How do staff and visitors know which protective equipment to wear in each area?
- 03How are people using the service and staff supported to access testing?
- 04What is the current plan for preventing or managing an infection outbreak?
- 05How are staff who use public transport supported to reduce infection risks when travelling to and from work?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide a new overall rating or ratings for the other care questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Te Hira Care Home Limited rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some staff knowledge and medicines guidance needing attention.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 7 August 2018. They spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and the manager. They observed care and mealtimes, reviewed four care plans and daily records, checked recruitment and training, and examined quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and risks, had enough staff, received suitable care and food, and were supported to maintain their health.
People described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors found care plans were personalised, people were involved in decisions, and activities reflected their interests. The home had systems to monitor quality and make improvements.
The report identified some areas to improve. Some staff had limited knowledge of local safeguarding procedures, and there were no written protocols for some medicines prescribed when needed. The manager said these issues would be addressed.
Personalised care
Staff knew people's individual preferences, interests and life histories. Care plans explained how people wanted to be supported.
“People's care plans recorded how they would like to be cared for and supported.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff reassure someone who was anxious and observed positive relationships.
“We observed caring interactions between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Good support with food and health
People were offered choices and support with eating and drinking. Staff worked with health professionals when people needed additional help.
“Staff monitored people's appetites and obtained advice from people's GPs and dieticians if they were at risk of poor nutrition.” from the report
Meaningful activities and choice
People were supported to follow hobbies, spend time with family, join activities and make choices about their day.
“People led fulfilling lives because they were engaged in activities that were meaningful to them.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Senior staff carried out checks and recorded actions to improve the service, including replacing equipment after an infection control check.
“There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of service.” from the report
Safeguarding knowledge
needs fixingSome staff had limited knowledge of local authority safeguarding procedures. The manager said extra support would be provided to update their knowledge.
“We found some staff had limited knowledge of local authority adult safeguarding procedures.” from the report
Medicines given when needed
needs fixingSome medicines prescribed on an as-needed basis did not have written protocols explaining when they should be given. Staff said they relied on knowing people well.
“We found there were no protocols in place to guide staff on when to administer some people's 'as needed' medicine.” from the report
Advance care planning
minorThe home was still discussing advance care planning with people as part of care reviews. Families may want to ask how this has progressed.
“The registered manager told us they were in the process of discussing advance care planning with people as part of their care reviews.” from the report
- 01What extra safeguarding training or support have staff received since the inspection?
- 02Are written protocols now in place for every medicine prescribed to be given when needed?
- 03How are residents and families involved in advance care planning?
- 04How do you check that care plans and risk assessments remain up to date when people's needs change?
- 05What activities and community links are available for someone with my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas of the service, and the ratings remained Good from the January 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 2018 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 Te Hira Care Home Limited
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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 Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.