CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Tidings
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved risk assessments, safer medicines auditing, enough staff, safe recruitment and suitable infection prevention measures. The home was no longer in breach of Regulation 12.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found stronger audits, better oversight of risks and a positive culture where people, relatives and staff could raise concerns. The home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safer care, improved management and kind, person-centred support after an earlier Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. One inspector visited on 5 May 2021 and reviewed records, medicines, risk assessments, cleaning checks and policies. The inspector met the two people living in the home, observed their care, and spoke with relatives, staff and the manager.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found improved risk assessments, safer medicines checks, suitable staffing, safer recruitment and better infection control. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
The previous inspection, published in March 2020, rated the service Requires Improvement and found breaches relating to safe care and treatment and governance. This inspection found enough improvement and confirmed that the home was no longer in breach of those regulations. The other three question ratings were not assessed during this visit and were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Improved risk management
Risk assessments reflected people's current needs, including mobility, epilepsy, eating and accessing the community. Changes had also been made to reduce environmental risks.
“Staff told us the detailed risk assessments held in people's care plans, reflected current risks associated with people's mobility, epilepsy, eating, accessing the community and social activities.” from the report
Medicines safety
Medicines audits had improved and trained staff had their competence checked before giving medicines without supervision.
“The registered manager showed us the improvements they had made to their auditing systems, which ensured any potential medicines errors were picked up and acted on in a timely manner” from the report
Stable staffing
Relatives and staff said there were enough staff, and relatives valued the long-standing staff team. Inspectors observed warm and meaningful interaction.
“Relatives felt there were enough staff to meet their family member's needs. They praised the quality and stability of the staff group” from the report
Positive leadership
The manager was described as approachable and available. Staff and relatives felt listened to and able to raise issues.
“People's relatives felt fully involved in their family member's care and support. They told us they had a good rapport with the registered manager and staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
The home supported people to make choices, pursue personal goals and remain involved in decisions. Staff adapted activities during the pandemic to support wellbeing.
“The outcomes for people using the service promoted choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check that risk assessments remain up to date for mobility, epilepsy, eating and community activities?
- 02How are medicines errors identified, recorded and acted on, and how often is staff competence checked?
- 03How will you maintain the improvements to audits and quality checks identified in this inspection?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication needs, personal goals and choices about activities and community involvement?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 2021 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 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety risks and weak monitoring could put people at risk.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 February 2020. One inspector observed care because people could not explain their experiences directly. The inspector also spoke with the registered manager and three support workers, and checked care, staff and safety records.
People were treated kindly and supported to make choices, take part in activities and use health services. Staff knew people well, and there were enough staff during the visit. The effective, caring and responsive parts of the service were rated Good.
The home was not always safe. Unguarded hot radiators created risks of burns and scalds, some areas were not clean or well maintained, and records for some as-needed medicines were incomplete. Checks by managers had not found these problems. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, making the overall rating Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff knew people well and supported them with sensitivity, dignity and respect.
“Our observations of care, review of records and discussion with the registered manager and staff demonstrated people were treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, interests, preferences and communication needs. Staff supported people to make choices and become more independent.
“Care plans were person centred and included information on people's background, interests, likes and dislikes and preferences on how they wished to receive their care and support.” from the report
Activities and community access
People took part in activities they enjoyed, went into the community and were supported to maintain contact with relatives and friends.
“People accessed the community on a regular basis with shopping trips, swimming, bowling and meals out.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received training relevant to their roles and told inspectors they received regular supervision and support.
“Staff were provided with a variety of training relevant to their roles.” from the report
Unguarded hot radiators
seriousPeople could be burned or scalded by exposed radiators. The risks had not been properly assessed, including for people with epilepsy and falls.
“We found people were at risk of burns and scalds from exposed, unguarded scalding hot radiators throughout every room in the service.” from the report
Weak safety monitoring
seriousManagement checks did not identify important risks or ensure action was taken. Learning from a similar risk at another service had not been applied here.
“Management audits we reviewed had not identified these shortfalls.” from the report
Cleanliness and maintenance
needs fixingSome kitchen storage areas were not clean, and damaged flooring made cleaning difficult. Inspectors said this created a risk of cross infection.
“This included areas such as kitchen cupboards and drawers where people's food, crockery and cutlery were stored.” from the report
- 01Have all the unguarded radiators been guarded, and how have you assessed the risks for people with epilepsy or falls?
- 02How are you now checking as-needed medicine stocks and making sure the records match?
- 03What cleaning, flooring and maintenance work has been completed, and how is it checked?
- 04How have you strengthened management audits so that safety problems are found and corrected promptly?
- 05How will you record each person's wishes about sudden death, palliative care and cultural or spiritual needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the previous Good rating was from an inspection published on 30 August 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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.
Every inspection of The Tidings
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 October 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.