CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Boat House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, safeguarding, medicines, staffing and infection control were managed safely. Some windows did not meet safety regulations, but restrictors were fitted immediately after this was raised.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective oversight, a positive culture and staff who worked well together. This improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2023
The Boat House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some records and management arrangements needing attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 12 July 2023. The inspection followed concerns about safety monitoring and looked only at Safe and Well-led. One inspector spoke with a person using the service, two relatives and five staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were handled safely and there were enough suitably recruited staff. They also found that the home learned from accidents and incidents.
The home supported younger adults with a learning disability or autism. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, promoted choice and independence, and worked with health and social care professionals. A few issues were identified, including unsafe windows that were fixed during the inspection and one care plan that needed updating.
The overall rating remained Good. Ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this visit and were carried forward from the previous inspection. Well-led improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection to Good.
Staff knew people well
People were supported by a consistent staff team who understood their communication needs, preferences and risks.
“People were cared for by a consistent staff team.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff promoted what people could do, supported their interests and helped them access activities and services in the community.
“Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were securely stored, records showed they were given as prescribed, and staff had clear guidance for medicines taken when needed.
“People's medicines were safely managed.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Managers reviewed accidents and incidents for patterns and took action when they found a possible cause.
“The interim manager regularly analysed the accidents and incidents for themes and trends to reduce the risk of them happening again.” from the report
Positive staff culture
Inspectors found staff and interim management worked together and were committed to supporting people well.
“The interim manager and staff shared a positive culture, and they were passionate about supporting people.” from the report
Window safety
needs fixingSome windows did not meet safety regulations. The provider fitted restrictors immediately after inspectors raised this.
“We found some windows were not compliant with safety regulations, however, when informed the provider took immediate action to ensure restrictors were put in place to help keep people safe.” from the report
Care plan update
needs fixingOne person's needs had changed but their care plan did not yet reflect this. The manager updated it when inspectors raised the issue and planned extra checks.
“We found where 1 people's needs had changed; their care plan did not reflect this.” from the report
Feedback records
minorThe provider had acted on feedback but had not yet fully collected and documented feedback from people and relatives.
“However, the provider had identified the requirement to collate and document people and their relative's feedback.” from the report
Registered manager vacancy
needs fixingThe registered manager had recently left before the inspection. An interim manager was in place while the provider recruited a replacement.
“The provider was supporting the interim manager whilst the registered manager's post was being filled.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for the home while the registered manager's post is being filled?
- 02How do you check that care plans are updated promptly when people's needs change?
- 03What checks are now in place to make sure all windows and other safety features remain compliant?
- 04How are you collecting and recording feedback from people and their relatives?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and when will these areas next be fully inspected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 August 2023 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control was safe during a coronavirus outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 4 February 2021. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control arrangements because the home had a coronavirus outbreak. The inspection was announced.
Inspectors found good practice. Staff used protective equipment correctly, replacement supplies were available, and staff and residents were tested regularly. The provider worked with Public Health England during the outbreak.
The home had not recently admitted anyone because of the outbreak. Plans for safe admissions and visiting were in place, while people used telephone and video calls to keep in touch with relatives.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall rating or a full set of ratings for the five key questions.
PPE and supplies
Staff were observed using PPE correctly, and there was enough replacement PPE in the home.
“Staff were seen wearing PPE correctly at all times and there was plenty of replacement PPE in the home.” from the report
Testing and training
Staff and residents received regular COVID-19 testing. Staff had also received training in using PPE safely.
“There was regular testing of staff and residents for COVID-19.” from the report
Managing the outbreak
The provider kept in regular contact with Public Health England and used consistent agency staff when staffing levels were affected.
“The providers management team had regular contact with Public Health England team to monitor the outbreak.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to stay in touch with friends and relatives by telephone and video calls while lockdown restrictions were in place.
“In the meantime, people were supported to maintain contact with their friends and relatives through telephone and video calling.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently preventing and managing infection outbreaks?
- 02How often are staff and residents currently tested when there is an infection risk?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough regular staff when staffing levels are affected?
- 04What are the current arrangements for visiting relatives?
- 05How do you check that new admissions can be made safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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.
Every inspection of The Boat House
8 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 May 2015.
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 Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.