CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Old Post Office Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
The unannounced inspection found the home Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and the covering manager, observed care, and checked care records, staff files, medicine records, complaints and quality checks.
People were protected from abuse and risks to their safety were assessed. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, clean surroundings and medicines being given and recorded safely. People had their health, food and communication needs assessed and supported.
Inspectors saw kind and respectful relationships. People were involved in choices, supported to be independent, and helped to take part in activities and use the community. Complaints were investigated and the provider used audits and feedback to improve the service.
At the previous inspection in May 2017, Safe and Well-led were Requires Improvement because of medicines and monitoring concerns. At this inspection, the provider had made the required improvements and both areas were rated Good. The report also says the registered manager was away during the visit and another manager provided cover.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found staff were trained and checked as competent. Medicines were in stock, stored safely and recorded accurately.
“Medicine Administration Records (MAR) charts were in place and our checks confirmed the records were completed accurately.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described good relationships with staff. Staff respected privacy, dignity and people's choices about care.
“Staff were respectful with how they spoke to people and ensured people's privacy was maintained.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs, preferences and goals. People were supported to follow interests, attend activities and access the community.
“The plans were reviewed and updated regularly and people told us they were involved in the discussions about their plans.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The provider checked the quality of care and used audits, incidents and feedback to make changes. This included improvements since the previous inspection.
“The audits were used to develop an action plan of improvements which were monitored by the provider.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the daily, weekly and monthly medicines checks been maintained since the inspection?
- 02Who manages the home when the registered manager is away, and how is continuity of care ensured?
- 03How will you assess and support my relative's communication, sensory, food and health needs?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How would my relative and family be involved in reviewing the care plan and raising concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; one inspector spoke with three people and three staff, observed care, and reviewed care records, staff files and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Rated Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care but unsafe medicines management and weak oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 May 2017. One inspector spoke with four people living in the home, two care staff and the registered manager. The inspector reviewed a care plan, a risk assessment, medicines records, accident reports and quality checks.
The main concern was medicines. Some medicines were still being used after their safe opening period, one bottle had no label, and unwanted medicines were not recorded correctly. People did receive their medicines when needed, but these practices could have put people at risk.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. Staff were trained, kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions, supported to stay healthy and helped to follow their interests. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement because of the medicines problems and because the home's checks had not found them.
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people, supported their emotional needs and respected their privacy and dignity.
“People were cared and supported by staff who were kind and attentive to their needs.” from the report
People's choices
People were involved in care reviews and daily decisions. Staff supported individual interests, relationships, education and independence.
“People were supported by staff to live a lifestyle of their choice.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and evidence that appropriate recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
People had meal choices, support with eating and drinking, and help to attend healthcare appointments. Staff understood individual swallowing and dietary needs.
“People were supported to access relevant healthcare services when needed.” from the report
Unsafe medicines records and storage
seriousA medicine was still being used after its safe opening period, another had no label, and unwanted medicines were not recorded accurately. This meant the home could not account for all medicines or show they were safely disposed of.
“The recording and storage of medicines were unsafe.” from the report
Checks did not find the problem
needs fixingThe home's six-monthly governance audit did not identify the medicines shortfalls. Staff were not following the systems already in place.
“However, this was not effective to identify shortfalls with the management of medicines.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure medicines are labelled and disposed of within the correct time?
- 02How are unwanted medicines recorded now, and who checks that the records match the medicines held?
- 03What evidence can you show that the home's quality audits now identify medicines problems?
- 04How are people and their families involved in reviewing medicines and raising concerns about treatment?
- 05How will you support the person's individual activities, healthcare needs and independence?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed the overall service against all five CQC questions and gave ratings for each question. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 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 Old Post Office Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Old Post Office Residential Home →
- June 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Old Post Office Residential Home →
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 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 17 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.