CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Minims (12 & 31)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding and individual risks. Inspectors found that medicines were managed safely and that staffing levels were adjusted to people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was based on professional guidance. Staff received training and people were supported with food, drink, health appointments and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Staff supported people to make choices and protected their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff understood people's communication needs. People were supported with activities and outings, although inspectors suggested more structured in-house activities and found that the complaints policy needed updating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was described as well managed, with effective audits and clear staff responsibilities. The manager was continuing to develop care plans, activities, the environment and the process for learning from events.
What inspectors found, February 2020
The Minims (12 & 31) was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some minor improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced inspection in January 2020. One inspector spoke with people living there, staff, relatives and a social care professional. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and liked living there. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, supported choice and independence, treated people kindly, and helped them access activities and health care.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when the overall rating was Requires Improvement. Inspectors still identified some work to continue, including redecoration, making activities more structured, updating the complaints policy and further developing how lessons are learned.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and relatives reported no safety concerns. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“People told us they felt safe in the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff being courteous and kind. People were treated with dignity, and staff supported privacy and personal choice.
“We saw staff were always courteous and kind towards people they supported.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, develop skills and take part in their community. Decisions made for people who lacked capacity followed a best-interest process.
“People were included in their care, their opinion mattered, and they were supported to live life being active part of their community.” from the report
Good health support
Staff worked with health and social care professionals and recognised changing health needs. People were supported to attend relevant health appointments.
“This helped ensure people were getting the right support when they needed it.” from the report
Effective management checks
Audits identified areas for improvement and actions were taken. Staff had clear responsibilities and received additional training to build their skills.
“Audits completed by the registered manager and the provider were effective in identifying areas in need of improvement and actions were taken to improve the quality of the service provided” from the report
Some redecoration was needed
minorThe home was clean, but some areas in bungalow number 12 needed redecoration. Some bedroom doors were scratched and paintwork needed refreshing.
“Areas in bungalow number 12 needed some redecoration.” from the report
Complaints policy needed updating
needs fixingThe complaints process was displayed and accessible, but it did not include contact details for relevant authorities if someone wanted to take a complaint further.
“This needed updating to ensure contact details of relevant authorities were included in the policy so that people could take their complaint further if needed.” from the report
Learning from incidents was developing
minorThe manager was still developing how learning from things going wrong was embedded in everyday practice. Staff were updated through supervision and meetings.
“This was an area the registered manager was further developing to ensure it was imbedded in everyday practice.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with the redecoration and scratched bedroom doors in bungalow number 12?
- 02What structured in-house activities are now available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and needs?
- 03Has the complaints policy been updated with contact details for relevant authorities?
- 04How do you record and share lessons learned after accidents, incidents or other things go wrong?
- 05How will you support my relative's communication, independence, health needs and preferred activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home itself. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 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, January 2019
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staffing and cleaning checks were not consistently reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 17 December 2018. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, training, complaints and other documents.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported by trained staff, involved in choices, treated with kindness and dignity, and helped to follow their interests and take part in activities.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Staffing levels did not always meet people's needs when they wanted support, and there was no effective cleaning schedule or record of completed cleaning tasks.
The previous breaches about medicines, fire safety, equipment checks and weak improvement systems had been addressed. However, the overall rating remained Requires Improvement because other improvements were still needed.
Medicines managed safely
Staff had guidance for medicines given when needed. Checks found correct stock levels and accurate records, with regular audits.
“We completed random stock checks and found the levels were correct, staff had completed relevant documentation correctly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's needs and preferences and supported them in a kind way. Inspectors saw positive relationships and respect for privacy and dignity.
“People were cared for and supported in a kind and compassionate way by staff that knew them well and were familiar with their needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines and personal circumstances. People were supported to develop interests and take part in community activities.
“People received personalised care that met their needs and took account of their preferences and personal circumstances.” from the report
Improvement since the previous inspection
The provider had addressed the previous concerns about medicines, fire safety, equipment checks and improvement monitoring.
“At this inspection, we found the provider had made the required improvements.” from the report
Staffing could delay support
seriousThere were not always enough staff to meet people's needs when they wanted help. One person waited over half an hour for a two-person transfer, and another had to wait to go out.
“This meant that people's needs were not always met at the time they wanted, due to the staffing levels at that time.” from the report
Cleaning was not properly monitored
needs fixingThe homes looked clean during the inspection, but there was no cleaning schedule at both homes and records did not show that all cleaning tasks had been completed.
“This meant there were not effective systems in place to monitor the levels of cleaning.” from the report
No registered manager in post
needs fixingThere was no registered manager during the inspection. A new manager was due to start on 24 December 2018 and was expected to register with CQC.
“There was no registered manager at the service.” from the report
- 01How many staff are planned for each shift, and what is the arrangement when someone is off sick?
- 02How will you prevent people waiting for transfers, personal care or trips out when two staff are needed?
- 03What cleaning schedule is now in place at both homes, and how do managers check and record that tasks are completed?
- 04Has the new manager registered with CQC, and who is responsible for the home until that is complete?
- 05How are key-worker notes kept up to date and used to support each person's interests?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including checks of care, medicines, records, staffing, training, complaints and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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.
Every inspection of The Minims (12 & 31)
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 December 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.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.