CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Firs Care Home with Nursing
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed, including visiting, testing, protective equipment, cleaning and admissions.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2020
The Firs Care Home with Nursing was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 12 August 2020. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than a full inspection of the home.
Inspectors found good practice. Visiting was controlled by appointments, temperatures were checked, cleaning was organised, and staff had access to testing and protective equipment. Activities were increased because reduced family contact had affected some people's wellbeing.
The home was marked as inspected but not rated. Inspectors said they were assured about the infection control arrangements, but this report does not give ratings for the other areas of care.
Controlled visiting
Visits were arranged by appointment and visitors had their temperature checked. This was intended to reduce infection risks.
“The provider had restricted visiting to an appointment system to protect people living in the home and staff from additional risks to contracting the virus.” from the report
Cleaning arrangements
Shared areas and equipment were cleaned after use, with a schedule to make sure infection control equipment was changed regularly.
“Staff monitored communal toilets and lounge / dining chairs and disinfected after each use.” from the report
Protective measures
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment, testing, social distancing and shielding arrangements were being used safely.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Support during restrictions
The home increased activities after reduced family contact affected people's wellbeing and independence skills.
“Activities within the service had been increased to counteract this which reduced people's feelings of isolation.” from the report
Reduced contact affected wellbeing
minorThe pandemic reduced social contact and visiting. Staff noticed heightened confusion for some people, and some people lost independence skills.
“There had been a reduction in social contact and visiting due to the pandemic. This had impacted on people's wellbeing and staff had observed heightened confusion at sometimes.” from the report
- 01What is the current visiting arrangement, and how do you support residents who become confused or isolated when contact is reduced?
- 02What infection prevention and control measures from this inspection are still in place?
- 03How do you now support residents to maintain their independence skills?
- 04When was the home last given a full rating covering caring, effective care, responsiveness and leadership?
- 05How do you arrange testing and protective equipment for residents, staff and visitors?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 August 2020 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, May 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but medicines records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 March 2018. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals, and checked care, medicine, staff and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment, good relationships, personalised support, activities and systems for listening to people's views.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Medicine records did not always show clearly what had been given, including variable doses of medicines taken when needed. Some do not attempt to resuscitate records were also not fully completed or checked.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered promptly and staff made sure communal areas remained covered.
“There were sufficient staff to care for people. We saw that staff were based in the communal rooms throughout the day.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy, possessions and independence. Families were welcomed and could visit at any time.
“People were called by their preferred name. One person told us, "The staff call me [Name]. It isn't my proper name but the staff know what I want to be called this.” from the report
Personalised support
Care planning included people's histories, preferences and interests. People could choose how to spend their time and take part in activities or spend time alone.
“People's care was planned to reflect their preferences and people were offered opportunities to socialise together or, if they preferred, spend time alone doing what they enjoyed.” from the report
Good leadership and monitoring
The manager was described as approachable and willing to listen. Regular checks covered areas such as cleanliness, call bells, care plans and moving people safely.
“The provider's quality monitoring system included checks on how the service was provided.” from the report
Choice and support with food
People were offered choices, could request different meals and were not rushed. Snacks, drinks and specialist equipment were available where needed.
“People enjoyed the food that was prepared and were provided with a choice.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousRecords did not always show how many tablets had been given, particularly for variable doses of medicines taken when needed. Missing signatures were not always reported so action could be taken that day.
“Some people needed variable doses of 'as required' medicines and it was not always clear how many tablets had been administered.” from the report
Resuscitation decisions
needs fixingSome do not attempt to resuscitate records were not fully completed by the GP. The manager had not identified this or recorded how capacity had been assessed.
“Some people had a do not attempt to resuscitate order and we saw this had not always been fully completed by the GP” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to record variable doses of medicines taken when needed?
- 02How do you now check for missing medicine signatures, and what happens on the same day if one is found?
- 03How are do not attempt to resuscitate decisions assessed, completed and reviewed?
- 04How will you make sure care plans and electronic records stay accurate when people's needs change?
- 05How are people's views and relatives' feedback used to check that improvements are being made?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including care, premises, medicines, staffing and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 2018 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 Firs Care Home with Nursing
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at The Firs Care Home with Nursing →
- May 2018GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Firs Care Home with Nursing →
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 2016.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“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.