CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Regard Partnership Limited - Clareville Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received medicines safely and on time. Risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing was sufficient, and safeguarding systems were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed to meet people's health, nutritional and communication needs. However, not all required legal authorisations for restrictions on people's liberty were in place during the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff promoted people's privacy, independence and involvement in decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People had access to activities, holidays and community opportunities based on their interests and preferences.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was well managed, with regular audits, staff meetings and systems for learning from incidents and feedback. Inspectors noted that the provider had not considered the most up-to-date guidance when planning future developments.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but noted the large group setting and incomplete legal authorisations for some restrictions.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit over 2 and 3 December 2019. They spoke with all nine people living at the home, four staff members, the registered manager and four relatives. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff recruitment records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by trained staff and treated with kindness and respect. Care plans were detailed, activities were based on people's interests, and staff supported people to develop skills and independence.
The report noted that the home is a large group setting and was not designed in line with best practice guidance about people with learning disabilities living more independently. Inspectors recommended that this guidance be considered in future planning. They also found that not all required legal authorisations for restrictions on people's liberty were in place at the time of the inspection.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found that medicines were given safely and on time. Staff had medicines training and regular checks of their competence.
“People received their medicines safely and on time. Staff received training in medicines management and had regular competency checks to ensure ongoing safe practice.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy and independence.
“All relatives agreed that the staff were kind and caring. Their privacy and independence were promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences and support needs. Staff knew people well and used this information in their daily care.
“People received person-centred care. Staff had a knowledge of people's histories, their likes and dislikes and how they wished to be supported.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to build skills, make choices and take part in activities, holidays and community opportunities.
“The outcomes for people using the service promoted as much choice and control as possible.” from the report
Large group setting
needs fixingThe home was not designed in line with best practice guidance and people lived in a large group setting. Inspectors recommended that the provider consider the guidance when planning future developments.
“People were living in a large group setting which is different to how most citizens choose to live their lives.” from the report
Some legal authorisations not yet in place
needs fixingThe manager had applied for the required assessments, but not all authorisations covering restrictions on people's liberty were in place during the inspection.
“However, not all authorisations were in place at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01What has happened since the inspection to put all required legal authorisations in place?
- 02What restrictions are used for my relative, and how are these reviewed in their best interests?
- 03How does the home help each person have privacy and meaningful choice within the large group setting?
- 04What plans are there to consider the Registering the Right Support guidance in future developments?
- 05How will my relative be involved in agreeing and reviewing their care plan if they have communication difficulties?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five key questions and included the premises, care provided, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 2020 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, person-centred support, but outdated PRN medicine guidance and gaps in specific staff training.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 March 2017. Two inspectors spoke with staff, the manager and relatives. They observed care and reviewed care plans, staff files, training records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were treated with respect, supported to be independent and given care based on their individual needs.
There were some shortfalls. PRN medicine instructions were out of date. Some staff had not received training for challenging behaviour, physical intervention, autism or Makaton. The home did not have a registered manager at the time, but a temporary manager was in place.
Person-centred care
Care plans included people’s routines, relationships, communication needs, preferences and signs of pain. Inspectors found that care was reviewed regularly and followed in practice.
“Care plans were detailed, person centred and contained information on people's lifestyles and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff understood people’s backgrounds and needs. They respected privacy, supported choice and encouraged people to do things for themselves.
“Staff knew, understood and responded to each person's diverse needs in a caring and compassionate way.” from the report
Safety systems
The home had risk assessments, fire plans, emergency evacuation plans and regular health and safety checks. Medicines records were clear and accurate, apart from the PRN guidance.
“Care records contained up to date risk assessments to keep people safe whilst encouraging independence” from the report
Improved environment
The home had been redecorated and several improvements had been made to rooms, flooring, lighting and fire safety.
“The home had been re-decorated and improvements made to the environment.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People had a range of activities, including work, swimming, cafés, cinema visits and drives. They helped choose menus, holidays and household tasks.
“People had a sufficient range of activities they could be involved in.” from the report
Outdated PRN medicine guidance
needs fixingInstructions for medicines used when needed were out of date and did not list current prescribed medicines. The manager said these would be updated immediately, and CQC said it would check this at the next inspection.
“However we found that peoples PRN protocols were out of date and did not contain details of current prescribed medicines.” from the report
Specialist staff training
needs fixingSome staff had not received training needed for people’s specific needs. This included challenging behaviour and physical intervention, autism and Makaton training.
“Eight staff had not received challenging behaviour and physical intervention training, and five staff had not received autism training.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
needs fixingInspectors found enough staff on the inspection day and said staffing had improved. However, relatives reported that a lack of drivers had sometimes stopped people going to the gym, going for a drive or going home.
“There were occasions over the last three months when people were unable to go to the gym or go out for a drive because of a lack of drivers.” from the report
- 01Have all PRN medicine protocols been updated to show each person’s current prescribed medicines?
- 02Which staff have now completed challenging behaviour and physical intervention training?
- 03How many staff have completed autism and Makaton training, and what happens while training is incomplete?
- 04How do you make sure people can attend planned activities when staff are absent or drivers are unavailable?
- 05Is there now a registered manager in post, and if not, who has responsibility for managing the home?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report also says improvements had been made since breaches found at the April 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 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 Regard Partnership Limited - Clareville Road
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Regard Partnership Limited - Clareville Road →
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Regard Partnership Limited - Clareville Road →
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.