CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Firs Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, June 2019
The Firs Residential Home was rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because cleaning products and medicines were not always managed safely.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 8 May 2019. Two inspectors spent one day at the home. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicine and staff records.
Inspectors found kind and respectful care. People had choice in their daily lives, received support suited to their needs and were positive about the staff. There were enough staff, the home was clean, and care plans were detailed and regularly updated.
The main problems were with the storage of cleaning products and the management of medicines. Some issues were fixed or discussed during the visit, but the systems checking safety had not found them. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection published in February 2017, but Safe was rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and supported them to make everyday choices.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff respond quickly. People and relatives said there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“People and relatives, we spoke to, all said there were enough staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans contained useful information about people's needs, preferences and interests. They were reviewed and updated when needs changed.
“Care plans were sufficiently detailed and person-centred, giving members of staff and external professionals relevant information when providing care to people who used the service.” from the report
Clean home
The home was clean and hygienic, and staff used protective equipment appropriately to help reduce infection risks.
“The home was clean and hygienic which reduced the risk of infection.” from the report
Approachable management
People, relatives and staff felt able to raise concerns. Inspectors found that the manager responded promptly to feedback and complaints.
“The registered manager had an open-door policy and people came directly with their individual matters.” from the report
Cleaning products
seriousCleaning products covered by hazardous-substance guidance were not always stored safely. People could have accessed them and been harmed, although the issue was addressed during the inspection.
“This meant people were at risk of having access to these products which if used inappropriately could cause them harm.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousSome medicines given when needed were not recorded properly, and the guidance for staff was not sufficient. One person's medicine had been left with them without staff knowing whether it had been taken.
“People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed. Relevant national guidelines about storing and administering of medicines were not always followed.” from the report
Safety checks
needs fixingThe home's audits and oversight had not identified the problems with cleaning-product storage and medicines. This limited assurance that safety systems were working reliably.
“Systems of oversight were not sufficiently robust to have identified the issues we found in relation to storage of COSHH products and Medicines.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the storage of cleaning products since the inspection?
- 02How are medicines given when needed recorded now, and how do staff know when they should be given?
- 03Has the medicines policy been updated and have all relevant staff completed the planned training and competency checks?
- 04How is the home checking that its audits identify medicine and hazardous-product risks?
- 05How will the home develop end-of-life care plans when people are first admitted?
This was an unannounced, one-day inspection covering the premises, care and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 June 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, February 2017
The Firs Residential Home is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 January 2017. The home could support up to 27 people, and 26 people were living there. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager. They also reviewed staff files, training records, care records and quality checks.
Inspectors rated all five areas Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. They found enough staff, safe medicines practices, suitable recruitment checks and staff training. People were supported to make choices, enjoy meals and activities, maintain relationships and access health professionals.
At the previous inspection, inspectors had found problems with decision-making for people who could not make some decisions themselves, including restrictions on their liberty. The provider had made the required improvements by this inspection. The home also sought feedback and used it to make changes, such as employing a laundry person and an activities coordinator.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were suitable for people's needs. The home used a dependency tool and reviewed it weekly.
“The manager used a dependency tool which reflected the varying needs of people and this was reviewed weekly.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff knew people well, encouraged choice and independence, and protected people's privacy and dignity.
“Staff ensured people's dignity was respected.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and interests. People were supported to choose activities and how they spent their time.
“The care plans were person and reflected aspects about the person.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What has changed since this inspection in how you assess people's capacity and make best-interest decisions?
- 02How do you review staffing levels when a person's needs change?
- 03How do you make sure medicines are still suitable, especially if someone has difficulty swallowing or loses independence?
- 04How are people and relatives told about, and involved in decisions concerning, the cameras in communal areas?
- 05What activities are available now, and how do you record and respond when a person does not want to join in?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and providing ratings for each. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 2017 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 Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
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.