CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Foam
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed in a personalised way, staffing levels were sufficient, medicines records were accurate and the home was clean and safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were based on detailed assessments of people's needs and choices. Staff had suitable training and supervision, people's healthcare needs were met and legal processes were followed where people could not make particular decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in their care and supported to use their skills and become more independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed each month. People were supported to communicate, follow their interests, go out every day and raise complaints if they were unhappy.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management knew people's needs and encouraged their involvement in decisions. Audits and checks were used to monitor the environment, records, cleanliness, health and safety, and the quality of care.
What inspectors found, March 2020
The Foam was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with Good ratings in all five areas.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 20 February 2020. One inspector spoke with two people, the registered manager, two care staff and one relative by telephone. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home was supporting two people with learning disabilities and autism, and could support up to three. Inspectors found that people were safe, received their medicines as planned, lived in a clean environment and had enough staff support.
Inspectors found that care was effective, caring and personalised. People were involved in decisions, supported to build independence and helped to take part in activities they enjoyed. The management team had systems to monitor the quality of care.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous rating was also Good, published on 5 May 2017.
Safe staffing
Staffing levels were based on people's needs and planned activities. Records showed that people went out as planned with the support they needed.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans explained what mattered to each person and how staff should support their preferences, communication and routines.
“People had keyworkers who worked closely with them to find out what was important to them and ensured their wishes and preferences were responded to.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and to develop their skills. Activities were discussed with people each month.
“People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used several checks and audits to monitor the home, records, cleanliness and health and safety. Actions identified by audits were followed up.
“There were a variety of checks and audits which looked at areas such as the environment, health and safety, records and cleanliness.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess whether the home can meet my relative's particular needs and risks?
- 02How would my relative be supported to communicate choices and take part in decisions about their care?
- 03What activities and outings are currently available, and how would these be matched to my relative's interests?
- 04How would you support my relative to develop independence and complete tasks they can do themselves?
- 05How are medicines, care plans and risk plans checked and kept up to date?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the accommodation and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 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 2017
The Foam is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, and said earlier problems had been resolved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 March 2017. One inspector spoke with three people, two staff and the registered manager. The inspector also observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems, suitable care plans, respectful support and good management oversight.
The previous inspection in November 2015 rated the service Requires Improvement and found five breaches. This report says those problems had been addressed and were no longer a concern. Inspectors did note that one bank staff member's mandatory training was not up to date, and that staff needed clearer guidance about formally recording verbal complaints.
Staffing and safety
Staffing levels had improved since the previous inspection and were flexible enough to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, risk assessments and safety checks were in place.
“Staffing was sufficient and flexible to meet people's needs; staffing levels had improved since the previous inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans contained specific information about people's needs, communication and behaviour. Inspectors found that the plans reflected the support people received.
“Care plans were meaningful and contained specific detail so staff could understand people better.” from the report
Activities and choice
People chose activities inside and outside the home. Increased staffing gave people more freedom to go out when they wanted.
“People chose to participate in a variety of recreational activities inside and outside of the service.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had acted on the previous inspection findings. Inspectors found improvements in staffing, medicines, the environment, records and quality monitoring.
“The provider had resolved the issues raised at the previous inspection which were no longer a concern at this inspection.” from the report
Bank staff training
needs fixingOne bank staff member had not completed all mandatory training. The manager was asked to improve this, although inspectors said the risk was reduced because this person did not work alone.
“A bank staff member who worked infrequently between the services had not kept up to date with all of their mandatory training.” from the report
Recording verbal complaints
minorThe complaints process was in place, but staff needed clearer guidance about when a verbal concern should be formally recorded.
“More clarification was needed to inform staff of when these should be recorded formally.” from the report
Wheelchair access
minorThe home was not accessible to people in wheelchairs. Some areas had been adapted for people with mobility difficulties, so families should check whether the layout meets the person's needs.
“Although the service is not accessible to people in wheelchairs it had been adapted in areas to better suit the needs of people with mobility issues.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure bank staff complete all mandatory training before working at the home?
- 02How would you support a person who uses a wheelchair, given the home's access limitations?
- 03When a person raises a verbal concern, how do staff decide whether it must be formally recorded?
- 04What staffing cover is available if planned staff are absent?
- 05How are each person's communication and behaviour support plans kept up to date?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the service; the report also checked whether problems found at the November 2015 inspection had been resolved. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 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 Foam
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 February 2012.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.