CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Pines
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines, food and drinks were not always stored safely. Unsafe water temperatures and incomplete mattress cleaning also created risks, although there were enough staff and safeguarding systems were in place.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Not all staff had completed required training before starting, and refresher training was sometimes overdue. Care plans, healthcare support and mental capacity arrangements were otherwise described positively.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported consent, independence, communication and individual preferences.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and responsive to people's needs and interests. People were supported with activities, community access, family contact and communication.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks did not reliably identify or address risks, including unsafe temperatures, cleaning and overdue training. The provider was not always learning effectively from these issues.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but serious weaknesses in medicines, safety checks, training and quality oversight.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. Inspectors visited on 3 and 4 May 2023. They reviewed records, observed care, spoke with staff and the manager, and gathered views from relatives and health professionals.
The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive. People were treated with dignity, staff knew them well, and care was personalised. People were supported with activities, community visits, communication and relationships.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Medicines and food were not always stored safely, unsafe temperatures were recorded without action, some cleaning was not completed, and staff training was not always up to date. The provider was asked for an action plan and will be monitored.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed positive interactions. Staff asked permission, respected privacy and supported people in a calm and dignified way.
“People were treated well and respected as individuals.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's communication methods, preferences and support needs. Relatives and professionals were involved in planning care.
“People received individual, person-centred care which met their needs.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to enjoy activities, go out and maintain important relationships. Staff adapted activities to reduce anxiety where needed.
“People took part in a range of activities including crafts, sandbox, trampolining and spa days.” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and safe recruitment checks were completed. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicines storage and training
seriousMedicines were stored at temperatures above the manufacturer's instructions, and medicines training was not always refreshed on time. This increased the risk of harm.
“People were at risk of harm as medicines were not stored safely.” from the report
Safety checks were not acted on
seriousUnsafe fridge, freezer and water temperatures had been recorded, but action was not always taken. High water temperatures increased the risk of scalds.
“People were not fully protected from risks in the environment.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingTwo mattresses needed cleaning, but there was no record that this had happened. Inspectors said people were at risk of infection.
“Two mattresses were identified as requiring cleaning however there was no record of cleaning having been done.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingNot all staff had completed required training before starting, and some refresher training was overdue, including rescue medication training.
“People were at risk of receiving inconsistent care and support as not all staff had received the required training before starting their roles.” from the report
Weak quality oversight
seriousThe provider's audits and checks did not consistently identify risks or make sure they were corrected. This limited assurance that the home was being managed safely.
“The provider's quality checks were not always effective in ensuring effective risk management was in place to protect people from harm or injury.” from the report
- 01Has the separate refrigerator for medicines been installed, and how are medicine storage temperatures now checked and acted on?
- 02Have all staff completed their required induction and refresher training, including rescue medication training?
- 03How are unsafe fridge, freezer and water temperatures now escalated and corrected?
- 04Have the two mattresses been cleaned, and how does the home record and check infection control actions?
- 05What actions were included in the provider's improvement plan, and how will progress be reviewed?
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 2023 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, April 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements and support for family contact.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 24 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during COVID-19, and asked about staffing pressures. It was not a full inspection of all areas of care.
Inspectors found clear arrangements for visitors, including PPE, testing and booking. People could also keep in touch by phone, letters and video calls, and could go out to see family.
The home had cleaning schedules, staff had training in PPE and handwashing, and inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. The service was inspected but not rated.
Safe visiting
The home had a process to support visits safely, including PPE, testing and booking. People could also see family outside the home.
“People were able to spend time with their family. People had visitors come to the home and there was a process and policy in place to help keep everyone safe.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing key infection risks, including PPE, social distancing, testing and outbreak control.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Cleaning systems
The home had cleaning schedules showing when different areas had been cleaned.
“There were systems in place to ensure the home was clean and maintained, including cleaning schedules which showed when different areas had been cleaned.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had been trained in PPE, handwashing and ways to reduce COVID-19 risks.
“Staff had been trained in procedures including how to use Personal Protective Equipment, handwashing and how to minimise the risks from Covid-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently arrange visits, including PPE, testing and booking?
- 02How often are different areas cleaned, and can we see the cleaning records?
- 03What infection-control training have staff completed recently?
- 04How are you managing staffing pressures, and have they affected people living at the home?
- 05How are people supported to keep in touch with family if they cannot have a visit?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four key questions or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 2022 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 Pines
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 April 2020.
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.