Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at The Firs Residential Home

Goodpublished 16 December 2022, 3 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People received medicines when needed, risks were assessed, and staff were recruited with appropriate checks. Inspectors noted mixed views about staffing and improvements needed in recording safety checks.
Effective?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
Caring?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
Responsive?
Good
This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
Well-led?
Good
Management was visible and involved, feedback was encouraged, and audits were used to identify and address shortfalls. Inspectors found a committed management team, but some safeguarding notifications had not been sent to the CQC.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2022

The Firs Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well-led, but some recording and notification processes needed attention.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 17 November 2022. It was prompted partly by safeguarding concerns, but the inspectors did not examine the incidents because a safeguarding enquiry was still taking place.

The inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care, meals, medicines and staff interactions, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, safety records and management audits.

People received their medicines safely, risks were assessed, and staff recruitment checks were completed. The home had systems for learning from incidents, although inspectors identified some improvements needed in safety checks recording and in notifying the CQC about certain safeguarding concerns.

The overall rating was Good. Safe improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while Well-led remained Good. The other key question ratings were not examined during this focused inspection and were carried forward when calculating the overall rating.

What inspectors praised
  • Medicines handled safely

    Inspectors observed medicines being given safely. Staff were trained and their competence was checked, with audits used to identify problems.

    “We observed staff providing people with their medicines. This was done safely by the staff member, including demonstrating good infection control processes.” from the report
  • Risks were assessed

    Care plans included risk assessments and the home had safety checks for areas such as fire, legionella and mobility equipment.

    “People's care plans included risk assessments which guided staff on how to mitigate risks.” from the report
  • Kind and approachable staff

    People and visitors described staff and managers as caring. Inspectors also observed caring and compassionate interactions.

    “Our observations confirmed that staff were caring and compassionate when interacting with people and visitors.” from the report
  • Feedback used to improve the home

    People, relatives and staff were encouraged to comment on the service. The home recorded actions taken in response to suggestions and complaints.

    “Each meeting updated people of the actions taken as a result of their comments.” from the report
  • Learning from incidents

    The management team reviewed accidents and incidents, used patterns in falls to plan staffing, and took action to reduce future risks.

    “There were systems to assess incidents and accidents and reduce future risks, such as referrals to health care professionals and the provision of technology to alert staff when people attempted to mobilise independently.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Staff could be stretched during incidents

    needs fixing

    Staffing levels were kept under review and inspectors observed care being provided, but one staff member and one relative said staff could become stretched when responding to incidents.

    “The staff work hard to meet my [family member's] needs, however occasionally staff do seem rather stretched, especially if there is an incident that needs additional personnel in another part of the care home.” from the report
  • Safety checks needed better recording

    needs fixing

    The management team had identified that records of safety checks and support provided needed to improve, and this was being addressed with staff.

    “The management team had identified improvements were needed in how staff recorded when people were checked for their safety and support provided.” from the report
  • Some safeguarding notifications were missed

    needs fixing

    The registered manager had not notified the CQC about some safeguarding concerns that had been raised with the local authority but were not taken forward as safeguarding cases. The home said this misunderstanding would be corrected.

    “However, we had identified that where safeguarding concerns had been raised with the local authority, but not taken forward as safeguarding, notifications had not been sent to us.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you ensure there are enough staff available when an incident takes staff away from other parts of the home?
  2. 02What changes have you made to record safety checks and the support given to people?
  3. 03How do you decide which safeguarding concerns must be notified to the CQC?
  4. 04What action has been taken following the safeguarding enquiry mentioned in the report?
  5. 05What are the current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not examined in this focused inspection?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only, prompted partly by safeguarding concerns; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 December 2022 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, September 2018

Rated Good overall, but Safe requires improvement because staffing levels did not always safely meet people's needs.

This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 9 August 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.

The home had improved since the previous inspection in October 2017. Care records were clearer, and medicines records for creams and other external medicines had improved. People received kind care, suitable support with food and health, activities and help to make choices.

The main concern was staffing. Inspectors found times when communal areas had no staff present, alongside a high number of unwitnessed falls. The managers put extra staff on duty immediately and said they would complete a full staffing review.

The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, so the overall rating should not be taken to mean that every part of the service was fully safe.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind relationships

    People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw a relaxed atmosphere and positive relationships between people and staff.

    “There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the service and people and staff clearly shared positive relationships.” from the report
  • Improved care planning

    Care records had improved since the previous inspection. They explained people's individual needs and the support staff should provide.

    “The records clearly identified how people's needs had been assessed, planned for and met.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Staffing levels

    serious

    Staffing arrangements were not robust enough for people's changing needs. Care staff also had extra duties, which could reduce the time available for care and supervision.

    “However, the current use of the staffing tool was not sufficient to assess a safe number of staff to reduce the risks to people receiving unsafe care and incidents between people and falls.” from the report
  • Unwitnessed falls and supervision

    serious

    Communal areas were sometimes left without staff. Inspectors noted nine unwitnessed falls in communal areas in July 2018 and seven in June 2018.

    “We observed that there were times when the communal areas were left with no staff in them” from the report
  • Small environmental safety issues

    minor

    Inspectors found a television connected to a hanging multi-socket and some unclean plug holes and sink overflows. The managers said these issues would be addressed.

    “However, there were some safety risks in the service which needed attention.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What did the full staffing review conclude, and how many staff are now provided on each unit and shift?
  2. 02How do you make sure communal areas are supervised, particularly when staff are serving meals or helping people with personal care?
  3. 03What changes have been made to reduce unwitnessed falls since the inspection?
  4. 04How do you check that cleaning includes plug holes and sink overflows, and that electrical equipment is safe?
  5. 05How are activities being provided now that staff have received training and activity champion roles were planned?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of The Firs Residential Home

4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at The Firs Residential Home →

  2. September 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at The Firs Residential Home →

  3. December 2017Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. October 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. May 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. May 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. March 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. January 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. June 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  14. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk

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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.

“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
Liz L., about Sithembiso N.
See live-in carers near SuffolkProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.