CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Adelaide
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and managed, staffing levels were sufficient, and medicines and infection control were generally handled safely. Inspectors found a medicine recording error and minor improvements needed in recruitment references.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management responsibilities, effective quality checks and an open culture. People, staff and professionals said managers were approachable and supportive.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and strong management, with minor medicine-recording and recruitment checks to improve.
The inspection visit took place on 21 January 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience visited the home, spoke with 12 people, one relative, staff and health and social care professionals, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment and infection control.
Inspectors found that people felt safe and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Risks were assessed, staffing levels were enough, medicines were generally managed safely, and infection control measures were in place. The home supported people to remain independent and worked closely with health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led also rated Good. This improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published on 23 July 2019. Only Safe and Well-led were inspected this time, so the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Safeguarding concerns had been reported and investigated appropriately.
“People said they felt safe using the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People gave positive feedback about staff. Privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“People all gave us positive feedback about The Adelaide and told us that staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Enough consistent staff
Inspectors saw staff responding to people calmly and promptly. Staffing levels were kept under review, and people were generally supported by staff who knew them.
“There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home and staff said they had time to chat to people and support them in a calm and unhurried way.” from the report
Strong management checks
The management structure was clear and the provider used audits and other checks to improve the service. Managers responded promptly to the minor issues raised.
“The provider had comprehensive quality monitoring and assurance systems comprising of a range of audits, which had been effective in bringing about improvement.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked closely with health and social care professionals. This supported hospital discharges and planning for people's next care arrangements.
“The service had very close links with local health and social care services and worked in collaboration with all relevant agencies” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingStaff did not always follow the home's medicine-recording procedures. No harm occurred, and the manager took immediate action to review records and stock levels.
“However, we noted that staff had not always following these procedures.” from the report
Recruitment references
minorInspectors found that references were not always sought from the most appropriate people or organisations. The manager took immediate action to address this.
“We identified minor improvements which could be made to ensure references were always sought from the most appropriate people or organisations.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to medicine recording after the inspection, and how are records now checked?
- 02How do you make sure references for all new staff come from the most appropriate people or organisations?
- 03How would staffing numbers change if my relative needed one-to-one support?
- 04How would you plan and communicate my relative's discharge or move to longer-term care after reablement?
- 05How are infection testing, visiting arrangements and outbreak procedures currently managed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key-question ratings carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2022 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, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but important safety and management systems were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited on 14, 15 and 20 May 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, incidents, complaints and quality checks. The inspection covered the short-stay residential service, day care and community re-enablement care.
People generally felt safe and described staff as kind, respectful and responsive. Staff promoted independence, worked with health professionals and usually had enough time to support people. The home provided suitable accommodation, good meals and appropriate support with choices and daily care.
The main problems were incomplete, generic risk assessments, weaknesses in some medicines and infection-control arrangements, and gaps in records. Quality checks had not found or corrected these issues quickly enough. The home had started a major improvement programme, and managers acted promptly on several issues during the inspection.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The previous full inspection rating was Good, published in November 2016, and CQC said it would continue to monitor the service.
Kind and respectful care
People consistently described staff as caring, friendly and patient. Inspectors observed respectful and compassionate support.
“Within the residential based service, we observed people were treated with kindness and compassion by staff.” from the report
Promoting independence
Re-enablement was understood by staff and was central to the service. People were encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves.
“The service's primary aim was to re-enable people to become more independent.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough care and support staff to keep people safe. Staff said they were not rushed and could give people time to do tasks themselves.
“There were enough care and ancillary staff available to keep people safe.” from the report
Prompt response to changing needs
Staff responded quickly to requests and to a person who became unwell during the inspection. Community staff also arranged reassessments when people's needs changed.
“We saw staff responded promptly to people's requests for support and identified when people's needs changed.” from the report
Action on inspection feedback
Managers acted quickly when inspectors identified problems. They introduced safer medicines arrangements and obtained equipment and laundry baskets that were needed.
“Where we identified areas for improvement on the first day of the inspection, immediate plans were put into place to address these areas.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
seriousSome assessments were generic and did not cover people's individual risks. This included risks linked to blood-thinning medicines, skin damage, diabetes, weight loss and malnutrition.
“Care files contained risk assessments however, these were generic, not person specific and did not cover all risks for each person.” from the report
Medicines recording
seriousTopical creams were not stored and recorded in line with the home's procedures. There were also no formal annual competency checks for staff who administered medicines.
“The failure to record the date containers of prescribed topical creams had been opened meant there was a risk these would be used beyond their 'safe to use' date as per manufactures guidelines.” from the report
Infection-control gaps
needs fixingThe laundry arrangements created a risk of cross-contamination, and a comprehensive infection-control audit had not been completed. Managers took action after inspectors raised these points.
“Although staff said these were cleaned between use a risk of cross contamination remained.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousEarlier quality assurance systems had not identified or resolved important problems. Some audits, including infection control and community medicines management, were still outstanding.
“Prior to this the provider's quality assurance systems had been ineffective and placed people at risk of not receiving a safe effective service.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingResidential staff had not received formal supervision as often as the provider's policy required. Some had received only one supervision in the year before the inspection.
“Records viewed for residential staff showed that this had not been occurring and some staff had received one supervision in the year prior to the inspection.” from the report
- 01Have all individual risk assessments now been completed, including for blood-thinning medicines, diabetes, skin damage and weight loss?
- 02How are topical creams stored, dated and recorded, and have all medicines staff now had formal competency assessments?
- 03Has the comprehensive infection-control audit been completed, and what changes were made to the laundry and handwashing arrangements?
- 04How do managers check that care records, food and drink charts and medicines records are complete and accurate?
- 05Have residential staff started receiving formal supervision every six weeks, as required by the home's policy?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led across the residential, day care and community re-enablement services. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 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 The Adelaide
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 2010.
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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 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.