CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Bungalow
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing levels were suitable, and medicines were given and recorded safely. Safeguarding procedures and infection control arrangements were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant knowledge and training, including specialist training for complex needs. Care plans were reviewed, healthcare was accessed when needed, and people were supported with food, drink and everyday choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff showed kindness, empathy and respect. They used facial expressions, gestures and sounds to understand people and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. Staff supported activities and interests, adapted care when needs changed, and involved relatives in discussions and reviews.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and deputy manager were described as approachable and supportive. Audits, action plans, staff meetings and family meetings were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff assessments and communication support still being developed.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 20 February 2019. One inspector spoke with the manager, staff and relatives, observed care, checked records and sought views from health professionals. People could not communicate verbally, so inspectors used observation and the SOFI method as well as other evidence.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and complex or physical health needs. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staffing was suitable and staff understood people's needs. Care plans were detailed and regularly updated.
Staff were described and observed as kind, respectful and supportive of independence. The manager had oversight of the home and quality checks were in place. The home was rated Good in all five areas, the same as at the previous inspection published on 28 September 2016.
Safe care
Risks were assessed and managed. Staffing levels were considered suitable, and medicines were recorded and stored safely.
“People continued to be safe and protected from avoidable harm. People's needs were assessed and plans were in place and followed to promote their safety.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff were knowledgeable and had training for people's complex needs. The service aimed to use consistent agency staff when needed.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and skilled; and carried out their job roles effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors observed staff treating people with kindness and empathy. Staff supported dignity, privacy and day-to-day independence.
“We observed staff interacting with people. Staff showed kindness and empathy.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's individual needs and preferences. Activities and support were adapted as people's needs changed.
“Care plans were detailed and contained clear information about people's specific needs, their personal preferences and how they wished to be supported.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and staff used infection control measures, including protective equipment where needed.
“The service was clean and free from any odours.” from the report
Staff competency checks still developing
minorCompetency assessments were being introduced to check that staff followed best practice. Families may wish to ask what checks are now completed and how often.
“Competency assessments were in the process of being put in place to be carried out by senior staff to ensure staff were following best practice.” from the report
Communication aids
minorThe service had not found specialist communication aids for people who could not communicate verbally. It said this would remain under review.
“At the time they had not found any specialist communication aids to support people but told us they would keep this under review.” from the report
Some DoLS authorisations pending
minorSome people had been referred for authorisation and some applications were still pending at the inspection. Ask the home about the current position for the person you are considering.
“At the time of our inspection the registered manager informed us some people had been referred for a DoLS authorisation and some were still pending.” from the report
- 01What communication aids or other methods are now available for people who cannot communicate verbally?
- 02Have competency assessments for all staff been put in place, and how are the results checked?
- 03Are any DoLS authorisations still pending, and what does this mean for the person’s care?
- 04How do you assess and review risks such as seizures or other complex health needs?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviews, activities and decisions about changes in care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but some medication records and evacuation work were not yet fully completed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over two visits. The inspector spoke with managers, care staff and relatives. They also observed care, reviewed records, and checked medicines, staffing, training, complaints, audits and equipment.
The home supported up to four people with learning disabilities and multiple or complex needs. Inspectors found people were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, understood their non-verbal communication and provided care that matched their needs and preferences.
The home had enough suitably checked and trained staff. Medicines were generally managed safely. Care plans, risk assessments, nutrition support and healthcare arrangements were detailed. People were supported to make choices, take part in activities and stay in contact with relatives.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. There were some points still being completed, including medication buddy records, a safeguarding audit and ramps for emergency evacuation.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and staff were seen to be kind, sensitive and compassionate. Staff understood people's individual ways of communicating.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and staff interacted with people in a kind, caring and sensitive manner.” from the report
Personalised care plans
The care plans covered people's physical, psychological, social and emotional needs. They also recorded preferences, risks and desired outcomes.
“The care plans we reviewed were very in-depth and contained a variety of information about each individual person, including their physical, psychological, social and emotional needs.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff on duty, with appropriate recruitment checks and relevant training. Staff said they felt supported in their roles.
“There were sufficient numbers of skilled, well trained and qualified staff on duty.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to make day-to-day choices and take part in activities suited to their interests. This included trips, clubs and leisure events.
“People enjoyed meaningful activities and care staff assisted them to participate in days out and also attending clubs.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Audits and staff competency checks had not identified concerns, although one record system was not always completed.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Medication buddy records
needs fixingThe buddy system record book was not always completed. The report says staff could administer medicines alone when a second staff member was unavailable.
“The service used a 'buddy system' for medication, but when looking at the buddy record book it was noted this had not always been routinely completed.” from the report
Evacuation arrangements
needs fixingNew night-time fire evacuation plans had been completed after refurbishment. However, ramps for each person's bedroom were still waiting to be fitted.
“They were waiting for ramps to be fitted in each person's bedroom to assist with evacuation.” from the report
Safeguarding audit
minorThe safeguarding audit was still being completed and was due to be finished by December 2016. The report does not say that this led to harm.
“The registered manager was in the process of completing a safeguarding audit of the service which needed to be completed by December 2016.” from the report
- 01Are the medication buddy records now completed every time, and how do you check this?
- 02Have the ramps in each bedroom now been fitted, and can you show us the current evacuation arrangements?
- 03How do you learn what a person is communicating through facial gestures, eye contact, humming or other non-verbal signs?
- 04How are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05What activities and outings would be available for my relative, and how would you identify which ones they enjoy?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, using observations, discussions and records including three people's care records and two staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 2016 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 Bungalow
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.