CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Conifers
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, and staff understood safeguarding, risk management and medicines procedures. Inspectors noted that weekend staffing levels did not initially provide the same flexibility for community visits, but extra cover was added straight away.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had suitable training and support. Inspectors found that future goals were not always recorded in care plans to show the progress people had made.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to communicate, make decisions, maintain relationships and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and supported people's routines, communication needs and interests. People took part in activities, stayed in contact with family and friends, and could raise complaints in accessible formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider and management were visible, approachable and open to feedback. Governance systems were mainly effective, but they had not always challenged practices such as keeping room keys on a long chain by bedroom doors.
What inspectors found, March 2023
The Conifers was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some improvements needed in weekend staffing and record keeping.
This was the first inspection since the service was newly registered. One inspector visited on several days in January 2023, including at the weekend. They met all six people living there, spoke with relatives, staff and professionals, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness and respect, supported to make choices, and helped to take part in activities and community life.
There were some shortfalls. Weekend staffing did not initially give people the same freedom to go out as during the week. Some goals were not fully recorded in care plans, and checks had missed a ripped bathmat. The provider acted on these issues during the inspection, or said action would be taken.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices and live with as much freedom and control as possible. Staff focused on what people could do and encouraged independence.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests;” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm, respectful interactions. Staff knew people well and understood their individual communication needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities suited to their interests, including trips out, holidays, horse riding and creative activities.
“People took part in a range of activities and pursued interests that were tailored to them.” from the report
Family involvement
Families could visit when they wished and were involved in care planning and feedback about the service.
“People were able to visit the service when they wanted.” from the report
Weekend staffing
needs fixingWeekend staffing did not initially give people the same flexibility to visit the community as during the week. Extra weekend cover was put in place during the inspection, but the provider was also advised to use a staffing tool to monitor staffing levels consistently.
“The weekend staffing levels did not provide people with the same flexibility in visiting the community as it did during the week.” from the report
Personal goals not always recorded
needs fixingStaff knew about people's future goals and plans, but care plans did not always show the progress people had made. The manager said this would be addressed.
“However, this was not always reflected in people's care plans to demonstrate the progress people had made towards them.” from the report
Cleaning check missed damaged bathmat
minorCleaning schedules and checks had not identified a ripped and unhygienic plastic bathmat. It was replaced when inspectors pointed it out.
“Although cleaning schedules and checks were in place, they had not picked up a person's plastic bathmat, which was ripped and unhygienic.” from the report
Governance did not challenge every practice
minorQuality systems were mainly effective, but they had not questioned whether some practices fitted the home's stated homely approach. Room keys attached to a long chain were removed during the inspection.
“However, the systems in place did not always question practices that had developed.” from the report
- 01What staffing arrangements are now in place at weekends, and how do you check they allow people the same opportunities to go out as during the week?
- 02How are each person's goals recorded in their care plan, and how is progress reviewed?
- 03What changes have been made to cleaning checks so damaged or unhygienic items are found promptly?
- 04How do you review everyday practices to make sure they respect people's privacy, dignity and independence?
- 05How is the new manager's application to register with CQC progressing?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 March 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.
Every inspection of The Conifers
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 September 2020.
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.