CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Pines
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection-control arrangements, but some kitchen surfaces and flooring needed repair.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
The home had enough personal protective equipment, hand sanitiser, testing and visitor screening. Staff were observed using protective equipment correctly. Visiting was available at all times, and people and relatives were supported to keep in contact.
Inspectors found cleaning schedules in place, including cleaning frequently touched areas every two hours. However, worn work surfaces in one kitchen and broken flooring in another kitchen meant cleaning may not always have been effective. The provider had agreed repairs and was arranging dates for the work.
The service was inspected but not rated. Only the safe question was looked at, and it was also recorded as inspected but not rated.
Protective equipment
There was enough protective equipment and hand sanitiser for staff and visitors. Staff had updated training and were observed using protective equipment correctly.
“There was sufficient supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for staff and any visitors to use.” from the report
Testing and screening
The home had regular COVID-19 testing for people living there, visitors and staff. Visitors and healthcare professionals had to complete screening before entering.
“A programme of regular COVID-19 testing for both people living at the service, their visitors and staff was in place.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
People and their relatives were supported to keep in contact, with visiting available at all times.
“People living in the service and their relatives were supported to maintain contact, with visiting available at all times.” from the report
Infection-control systems
The home had cleaning schedules and policies for managing COVID-19 risks. Inspectors were assured that the infection-control policy was up to date.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Kitchen repairs
needs fixingWorn work surfaces in one kitchen and broken flooring in another could make cleaning less effective. The provider had agreed the work, but dates were still being scheduled.
“Within one of the kitchen's the worksurfaces were worn . There was also an area of broken flooring in another kitchen.” from the report
- 01Have the worn kitchen work surfaces and broken flooring now been repaired, and on what dates was the work completed?
- 02How was cleaning managed while the damaged surfaces and flooring were still present?
- 03What staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 were affecting the home, and did they change the support people received?
- 04Are visiting arrangements still available at all times, and what screening is required for visitors?
- 05How are COVID-19 testing and vaccination requirements for staff and visiting professionals currently checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service and Safe question were inspected but not rated, and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and responsive support, but the environment meant Effective was rated Requires Improvement.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, training, safety and management records.
People were supported by enough staff who knew them well. Inspectors found personalised care, kind staff, support for independence, suitable activities and good involvement from health and social care professionals.
The main weakness was the physical environment. Inspectors found damaged and peeling paintwork, stained and worn carpets, and poor lighting in the main lounge. They also found some gaps in medicine and fire safety records, although they were assured people received their medicines as prescribed.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were Good. Effective was Requires Improvement. Since the previous inspection, Caring and Responsive improved from Requires Improvement to Good, and the overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly and relaxed relationships. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“Staff were patient and supportive when they interacted with people and displayed a genuine interest in the people they were supporting.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans reflected people's preferences, routines and goals. People helped shape their care and activities.
“Support plans were up to date, recently reviewed and contained detailed information about people and their preferences.” from the report
Improved activities and independence
People had more opportunities to go out, take part in activities and carry out everyday tasks. This was an improvement from the previous inspection.
“Staff told us how this had enabled the introduction of two additional day staff for activities with people.” from the report
Management checks
The management team used audits and feedback to monitor the service and identify improvements.
“The management team conducted regular audits and checks of the quality of the service.” from the report
Environment needed improvement
needs fixingInspectors found stained and worn carpets, damaged and peeling paintwork, and limited lighting in the main lounge. This was the reason Effective was rated Requires Improvement.
“We found that the physical environment throughout the service needed redecoration and upgrade.” from the report
Medicine records were incomplete
needs fixingStaff did not always sign medicine administration records in full. Other records and stock checks reassured inspectors that medicines were being given as prescribed.
“On a number of days staff had failed to sign the MAR charts in full and gaps in signature were evident.” from the report
Some training was overdue
minorOverall mandatory training compliance had fallen to 88%. The provider had plans to address refresher training.
“The operations manager confirmed, that overall compliance with service mandatory training had slipped a little with overall compliance of 88%.” from the report
Some fire safety records had gaps
needs fixingMost fire safety checks had been completed, but a few records were missing because incorrect paperwork had been used and staff had overlooked them.
“We noted a few gaps in the records which the team leader stated was due to incorrect paperwork being used and staff oversight” from the report
- 01What work has been completed on the damaged paintwork, stained carpets and lighting in the main lounge?
- 02How do you now make sure every medicine administration record is signed correctly?
- 03What has been done to prevent further gaps in fire safety records?
- 04Which staff still need refresher training, and when will their training be completed?
- 05How will you make sure people continue to have enough support hours for activities and community outings?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the report says Caring and Responsive improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, while Safe and Well-led remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 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 Pines
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 September 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.