CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Minstrels Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, followed social distancing and shielding rules, tested staff and residents, and had plans to manage infection outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 December 2020. It checked infection prevention and control measures because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found that visitors were screened and had to use personal protective equipment. Staff had training, equipment and suitable areas for putting on and removing protective equipment.
The home had regular COVID-19 testing, daily enhanced cleaning and a separate visiting room. Inspectors were assured that the home could prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened, had their temperature checked and were expected to follow PPE guidance. A separate visiting room reduced the need for visitors to walk through the main building.
“Screening questions and a temperature check were standard requirements for all visitors.” from the report
PPE and staff training
The home had supplies of masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. Staff were trained and inspectors observed them following current guidance.
“We observed staff followed current guidance and practice throughout our visit.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Regular COVID-19 testing was in place for staff and residents. The home had plans for preventing and managing an infection outbreak.
“The service had plans in place and knew how to respond to an outbreak of infection to ensure the safety of people and staff.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found that enhanced cleaning took place daily and that the environment was clean and hygienic.
“Enhanced cleaning took place daily. The environment was clean and hygienic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are visitor screening, PPE and the separate visiting arrangements still being used?
- 02How often are staff and residents currently tested for COVID-19 or other infections?
- 03When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
- 04What arrangements are in place now for preventing and managing an infection outbreak?
- 05Can you explain the home's current ratings for care areas that were not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the report did not rate the other care areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 2021 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, June 2018
The Minstrels Residential Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines safety required improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 1 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, visitors, care staff and the registered manager. They also checked care records, staffing, training and quality checks.
The home remained Good overall, as it was at the previous inspection. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Well-led had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement, which was a deterioration from the previous inspection. Inspectors found missing guidance for some medicines given when needed, problems with medicines given covertly, incomplete allergy records and limited information about activities.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to provide safe care. Staff and people said staffing levels were sufficient.
“The provider had ensured there was enough staff on duty to provide safe care to people.” from the report
Kind care
Staff were observed speaking kindly, offering reassurance and respecting people's pace, choices and dignity.
“People were treated with kindness and were given emotional support when needed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, wishes and life experiences. They were reviewed when circumstances changed.
“We found that people received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Improved leadership
The manager had addressed problems found at the previous inspection. Staff, people and relatives were involved and quality checks were being completed.
“At this inspection we found the provider had addressed the issues previously identified and found the domain to be 'good'.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were supported to eat and drink enough and to access doctors and other healthcare professionals.
“People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Medicines guidance
seriousFive of the nine records checked did not contain information to guide staff when giving as-needed medicines. Inspectors also found that arrangements for medicines given covertly were not suitable.
“Information to support staff when administering as required, (PRN) medicines, was not available to staff in five of the nine records we looked at” from the report
Allergy records
seriousThree medicine records were incomplete and medicine administration records did not always show people's allergies. Inspectors said there was a risk that someone could receive a medicine they were allergic to.
“There was a risk people would receive medicines which they were allergic to.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingActivities took place, but there was no programme or timetable. Some people, relatives and visitors felt there were too few activities and no trips out.
“Three family members and three visitors also raised concerns about the lack of activities.” from the report
Best-interests decisions
needs fixingThe home made best-interests decisions for people who could not decide for themselves, but these were not always specific to the individual decision.
“However these were not consistently decision specific as required by national guidance.” from the report
Records left visible
minorTwo people's care records were left in communal areas where visitors or members of the public could see them.
“However we observed two people's care records were left in communal areas where information could be seen by visiting relatives or members of the public.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the guidance for as-needed medicines since the inspection?
- 02How are covert medicines now checked to make sure the way they are given does not affect how they work?
- 03How do you check that allergy information is complete and matches the medicine administration records?
- 04What activities and outings are currently available, and how are people told about them?
- 05How do you make sure best-interests decisions are recorded for each specific decision?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection that looked at the premises, care and all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 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.
Every inspection of The Minstrels Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at The Minstrels Residential Home →
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Minstrels Residential Home →
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.