CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Mews
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood people's risks, staffing levels were sufficient, medicines were managed safely and minor cleaning concerns were dealt with promptly.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive and open culture, clear management arrangements and audits that identified and addressed issues. People and staff were involved, and staff felt supported.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with minor cleaning concerns dealt with during the visit.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 December 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable risk management and staff who knew people well. People told inspectors they felt safe and relatives were positive about the care.
Inspectors found some areas that needed cleaning. The provider acted quickly and showed what had been done to put this right. Systems for checking medicines, infection control and the environment were in place, and identified issues were addressed promptly.
This was a focused inspection, so only Safe and Well-led were assessed directly. The ratings for the other areas were carried forward from the previous inspection, which was also rated Good.
People felt safe
People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Relatives also told inspectors their family members were kept safe.
“People we spoke with enjoyed living at the home and told us they felt safe.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Staffing levels matched people's support needs, including one-to-one support during the day and waking staff at night.
“During the day people were supported on a one to one basis, therefore there was enough staff to support people in line with their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored appropriately, records were in place and as-needed medicines were given according to people's individual needs.
“People were supported to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Strong management systems
The home had a clear management structure and audits covering areas such as medicines, infection control and the environment. Issues found through these checks were dealt with in a timely way.
“The provider had a system in place to audit the service and any issues identified were actioned in a timely way.” from the report
Some areas needed cleaning
minorInspectors found minor infection-control concerns during a tour of the home. The provider took swift action and showed evidence that the concerns had been addressed.
“We carried out a tour of the home with the registered manager and found some areas in need of cleaning.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure all areas of the home remain clean?
- 02How are staffing levels decided for each person during the day and at night?
- 03How do you check that as-needed medicines are given in line with each person's individual needs?
- 04How are concerns or feedback from relatives recorded and acted on?
- 05Which ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection, and when will those areas next be reviewed?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 2024 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, October 2017
The Mews was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with a few records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors spoke with five people living at the home, managers and care workers. They observed support, looked at two care files and checked medicines, recruitment, training and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with the support. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, independence, health, meals and activities.
Inspectors found detailed care plans, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines systems and a formal quality monitoring process. They also noted some minor gaps, including missing copies of two staff training certificates and limited evidence about one person's ability to agree to their support plans.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. The home had plans for emergencies and arrangements to manage risks linked to daily life and community activities.
“We asked people using the service whether they felt safe living at The Mews, and they all said they did.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Staff were described as patient, friendly and understanding. Inspectors saw people being treated as individuals, with their dignity, privacy and choices respected.
“Staff supported people in an inclusive, sensitive and friendly manner, treating them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Activities matched people's interests
People took part in activities and outings linked to their preferences, including shopping, walks, sports, community visits and social events.
“People had access to social activities and educational opportunities that were tailored to their preferences and needs.” from the report
Good oversight
The home had regular checks covering medicines, health and safety and support plans. Action plans were used when checks identified improvements.
“There was a system in place to audit the quality of the service.” from the report
Training records incomplete
minorThe files of the last two staff employed did not contain copies of their previous health and social care training certificates. Managers said they had asked staff to provide the certificates.
“However, we noted that the last two staff employed did not have a copy of their previous health and social care training certificate in their file to evidence that they had completed it.” from the report
Unclear support-plan agreement
needs fixingOne person's support plans were not signed. Inspectors asked the manager to investigate because the file did not clearly show that the person could not decide some aspects of their support.
“We have asked the registered manager to look into this as there was no clear evidence in the file to show that the person could not decide some aspects of their support.” from the report
Survey results not shared
minorPeople were asked for their views, but there was no summary of the 2017 survey available for them to see. The manager said future summaries would be provided.
“However, there was no summary of the outcome available that could be shared with people.” from the report
- 01Have copies of the two missing staff training certificates now been added to their files?
- 02What was the outcome of reviewing the support plan that one person had not signed?
- 03How do you record that each person understands and agrees with their support plan?
- 04Are summaries of residents' surveys now shared with people living at the home?
- 05How are people's chosen activities and goals reviewed as their needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous Good rating from August 2015 reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 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 Mews
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.