CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tendring Care Homes Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including PPE, testing, visitors, admissions and outbreak planning. They found gaps in cleaning records, incomplete action-plan work and some clutter that could affect cleaning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements but gaps in cleaning records and some clutter.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 5 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. The home provided care for up to 23 older people, with 19 people living there at the time.
Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, outbreak planning and the infection-control policy. The home had a porch wash basin, a visiting pod and clear-panel face masks. People were tested for COVID-19 every 14 days.
There were important weaknesses in cleaning. Records had many gaps, and an earlier audit had also found cleaning shortfalls. The action plan had not been signed off as completed, and some clutter needed removing. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Hand washing
A wash basin was available in the porch so people could wash their hands fully before entering.
“The provider had set up a wash basin in the porch to enable full hand washing before entering the home.” from the report
Family visiting
The home used a purpose-built visiting pod and adapted it for face-to-face visits under new government guidance.
“A purpose built visiting pod was used to enable safe visiting from family and friends.” from the report
Support for hearing
The home had masks with clear panels to help people who had difficulty hearing.
“The home had a supply of face masks with clear plastic panels to support people who had difficulty hearing.” from the report
Regular testing
People living in the home were tested for COVID-19 every 14 days, more often than the guidance mentioned in the report.
“People using the service were tested for COVID-19 every 14 days, this was more often than the Government guidance of every 28 days.” from the report
Cleaning records and follow-up
needs fixingCleaning records had many gaps, making it difficult to confirm that cleaning was being completed. An action plan was in place, but no actions had been signed off as completed during the inspection.
“Cleaning records showed a high number of gaps making it difficult to be assured that cleaning was being carried out as stated.” from the report
Clutter affecting cleaning
needs fixingInspectors found clutter in some areas that needed removing so effective cleaning could take place.
“During a walk around we noted some areas of clutter which needed removing to ensure effective cleaning could be carried out in those areas.” from the report
- 01Have all the cleaning shortfalls identified in the inspection been corrected?
- 02How are cleaning records now checked to make sure there are no gaps?
- 03Have all actions in the infection-control action plan been completed and signed off?
- 04Have the areas of clutter identified by inspectors been cleared?
- 05How are staff competency and spot checks for PPE use carried out now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, including the Safe question only; the other four questions were not assessed and no overall rating was given. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some records and privacy practices needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 December 2018. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff, the manager and a professional. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, risk assessments, complaints, safety records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, safe medicines practices, kind staff, personalised care and good links with health professionals.
There were some shortfalls. Best interests decisions were not always recorded, and professional feedback raised concerns about staff staying during clinical treatment and protecting privacy. The manager said action would be taken, and completed one missing decision record during the inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's care needs. Staff said they had time to provide care and spend time with people.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Kind, personal care
Staff used gentle and meaningful communication. People were offered choices and supported with dignity and independence.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate in their approach.” from the report
Responsive care
Care plans were reviewed and changed when people's needs changed. Staff shared information through handovers and the electronic care planning system.
“Care plans were regularly reviewed and responsive to people's changing needs.” from the report
Positive management
Management was visible and approachable. Quality checks covered care plans, infection control, medicines and health and safety.
“Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place and up to date.” from the report
Best interests records
needs fixingSome decisions made in people's best interests had not been recorded. The manager obtained the correct documentation and completed one decision record during the inspection.
“Best interests decisions had taken into consideration the principles of MCA, but had not been recorded.” from the report
Privacy during treatment
needs fixingProfessional feedback said staff did not always understand the need to protect privacy when people received clinical treatment. The manager said this would be addressed with staff.
“Professional feedback indicated that staff did not always understand the need for privacy to receive clinical treatment.” from the report
Staff staying for treatment
needs fixingA professional said staff did not always remain during visits for clinical treatment. The manager said the importance of this would be repeated at a staff meeting.
“A professional advised that staff did not always stay when they visited to provide clinical treatment for people.” from the report
Incomplete hospital passports
minorHospital passports were used to share important information with hospitals, but they had not yet been completed for everyone. The manager said this work was under way.
“Not everyone had a hospital passport and the manager explained that the new electronic care planning system had an updated form” from the report
- 01Have best interests decisions now been recorded for everyone who needs them?
- 02How do staff protect privacy when people receive clinical treatment?
- 03Will a staff member stay during clinical treatment visits when this is needed?
- 04Have hospital passports now been completed for every resident?
- 05How are changes in people's needs shared between staff during handovers?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 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.
Every inspection of Tendring Care Homes Ltd
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.