CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Old Rectory
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe and inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Risk assessments gave staff guidance, but medicine temperature monitoring and PRN medicine records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported with food, drinks and healthcare, although some best interest records did not fully explain how decisions had been made.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors saw kind and compassionate interactions. Staff supported people's independence, dignity, relationships and individual interests.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's preferences and life histories. People had activities, support to maintain relationships and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture, an approachable management team and quality checks. An improvement plan was in place, although its medicine audits had not identified all the issues inspectors found.
What inspectors found, March 2019
The Old Rectory was rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found kind, personalised care but some medicine records needed improvement.
The unannounced inspection took place on 23 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, a visitor and staff. They reviewed care plans, staff files, medicine records, complaints, incidents, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found enough staff, safe care plans, good support with food and drink, and care that reflected people's needs and preferences.
There were some areas to improve. Medicine temperature checks were not always reliable, PRN medicine protocols were missing and reasons for giving these medicines were not always recorded. Some best interest records did not fully explain how decisions had been reached. The home was still rated Good overall, as the evidence did not show serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Staff took time to speak with people and protect their privacy and dignity.
“Throughout the inspection, we saw and heard people being treated with kindness and compassion by staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's routines, histories and preferences. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and continue important relationships.
“Plans contained detailed life histories. This meant that staff understood people's lives before moving to the service.” from the report
Food and drink
People were offered choices and a wide range of drinks. Staff adapted meals to people's preferences and needs.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and there was a clear focus on encouraging people to eat and drink well.” from the report
Activities and family links
The home offered varied activities and supported people to keep in touch with relatives and the local community.
“People had access to a range of stimulating activities.” from the report
Staff support and leadership
Staff had training, supervision and meetings where they could raise concerns. Inspectors found a positive culture and ongoing improvement work.
“There were quality assurance processes in place.” from the report
PRN medicine records
needs fixingThere were no protocols explaining when and why some additional medicines should be given. Staff did not always record why they had given them, although the manager said changes would be made immediately.
“Additionally, staff had not always documented the reasons why PRN medicines had been administered.” from the report
Best interest records
needs fixingSome records did not clearly explain how best interest decisions had been reached. The manager said this would be corrected immediately.
“The documentation in relation to best interest decisions did not always detail how decisions had been reached.” from the report
- 01Have PRN medicine protocols now been written for every person who needs additional medicines?
- 02How are staff recording the reason whenever a PRN medicine is given?
- 03How are medicine storage temperatures now checked, recorded and included in audits?
- 04How are best interest decisions recorded so that the reasons for each decision are clear?
- 05How do you manage staffing at busy times, when staff are off sick or when people need extra support?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good and the rating remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 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 Old Rectory
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.