CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Reeds
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, but some medicines and management records were not always accurate or easy to find.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 and 10 December 2023, with inspection activity continuing until 18 December. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicines, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. People appeared safe and relaxed, and staff understood their needs. There were enough trained staff, medicines were generally given safely, risks were assessed, and people were supported with choice, communication and least restrictive care.
Inspectors found some weaknesses in the digital medicines records and in how information and learning from incidents were recorded and reviewed. They also made a recommendation that information systems and management oversight should be improved.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. This was a focused inspection of those two areas. The other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection, when the home was rated Outstanding overall in 2018.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff knew people well and understood how to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm.
“People appeared to feel safe and relaxed in the company of staff.” from the report
Enough trained staff
The home had enough staff with the right skills to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Recruitment, induction and training supported safe care.
“The numbers and skills of staff matched the needs of people using the service.” from the report
Respectful, person-centred support
Staff respected people's choices, worked at their pace and communicated in ways they could understand. People were supported to have choice and control over their lives.
“Staff were patient and explained everything to people in ways they could understand.” from the report
Positive culture
Inspectors found a positive culture and staff who felt supported and valued. The home worked with relatives and other professionals.
“There was a positive culture at the service.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingThe digital system did not always calculate medicine stock correctly, and some information was difficult to locate. The provider said no errors had occurred and was making changes.
“The system used to record medicines management and administration was unable to calculate the expected count of medicines stock correctly.” from the report
Learning from incidents
needs fixingOn one occasion, staff were not supported to learn and improve promptly after an incident. Inspectors said this created a risk that the incident could happen again.
“We found 1 occasion where this had resulted in staff not being supported to learn and improve in a timely manner which risked a repeat incident occurring.” from the report
Management information
needs fixingSome information was not easy to find when needed, and there was limited evidence of the registered manager's oversight. Inspectors recommended reviewing the home's digital and human support systems.
“Systems of delegation and digital records at the service meant there was little evidence of registered manager oversight of the service and information was not always accessible at the time it was needed.” from the report
- 01How have you fixed the digital system's problem with calculating medicine stock?
- 02How do you now check that medicines records are accurate and that important information can be found quickly?
- 03How quickly are staff supported to learn from incidents, and how do you check that lessons have been acted on?
- 04How can relatives contact the registered manager directly if they have a concern?
- 05How is the registered manager's oversight of the home recorded and reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection published in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 2024 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, March 2018
Rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicines information and staff continuity issues.
Inspectors visited on 20 and 21 September 2017. The announced inspection was the home’s first since registration. They reviewed eight care plans and other records, spoke with staff and managers, and contacted two families.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, support with health and nutrition, and kind care that respected privacy, dignity and choice.
The home was rated Outstanding for Responsive and Well-led. Care was highly personalised, people were supported with activities and community access, and the provider used detailed checks, feedback and specialist support to improve care.
There were no breaches of regulations recorded. Inspectors did identify that some instructions for medicines taken as needed needed more detail. One family also raised concerns about staff turnover and continuity of care.
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people’s routines, preferences, communication, cultural and emotional needs. Staff could explain how they adapted support when people’s needs changed.
“Care plans took into account all areas of people's lives including their mobility, nutrition, physical needs, social needs and their cultural and emotional needs.” from the report
Positive behaviour support
Specialist staff worked with the care team to reduce distress, risky behaviour and the need for restraint. Inspectors saw that restrictions had been removed for two people who no longer needed them.
“This enabled them to provide ongoing training and support to staff on how people's care could be delivered to encouraged them to self-manage their behaviours and reduce the need for restraint.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to enjoy hobbies and meaningful activities at a level that suited them. This included activities in the home, on the same site and in the local community.
“People were supported to pursue activities that they enjoyed, where meaningful to them and promoted their wellbeing.” from the report
People’s involvement
People and families were involved in care planning and reviews. People could also contribute to residents’ meetings and, where able, help with recruiting staff.
“Where people were able they were encouraged to engage with the running of the home.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used regular audits, incident reviews, feedback and action plans to identify and fix problems. Inspectors found that planned actions were completed within their timescales.
“The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and took proactive action to resolve issues.” from the report
Medicines taken as needed
needs fixingSome instructions did not explain clearly enough when a medicine should be offered. The registered manager said the protocols would be reviewed.
“Where people had medicines prescribed to be taken as required there was information available to staff about when this medicine should be offered, however, more information was needed to support staff to offer this medicine consistently.” from the report
Staff continuity
needs fixingOne family reported a high staff turnover, which they felt made it harder to build trusting relationships. The home said it had introduced core teams to improve continuity.
“We have found that the turnover of staff is very high and this brings its own problems for us and for [name].” from the report
Homeliness of some bathrooms
minorInspectors noted that stainless steel splash backs were practical and hygienic, but had not been replaced with a more homely finish in some bathrooms.
“However, some people living at the home were able to manage their continence and this stainless steel had not been changed for something more homely.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the instructions for medicines taken as needed since this inspection?
- 02How do you decide when a person should be offered a medicine taken as needed, and how is this recorded?
- 03How stable is the current staff team for the person who would live here?
- 04How do you make sure a person is supported by staff who understand their communication and behaviour patterns?
- 05How can residents and families raise concerns, and how will they be told what action has been taken?
This was an announced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; it was the first inspection since the service was registered. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 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 Reeds
2 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- March 2018OutstandingSafe: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- August 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 August 2016.
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.