CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tiverton Drive
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient and safeguarding systems were understood. They were not assured that staff were using face masks effectively and safely when they entered the home.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a current rating for it.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a current rating for it.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a current rating for it.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found regular audits, action plans and partnership working with health and other professionals. The manager and staff were described as committed to learning and improving the home.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Tiverton Drive rated Good; inspectors found a well-run home with safe, personalised support, but staff were not always using face masks correctly.
The unannounced inspection took place on 19 April 2022. One inspector spoke with two staff members and the registered manager, and reviewed care, medicine, staffing, risk, infection control and management records. People receiving personal care were out for the day, so inspectors could not hear directly about their experience.
The home supported four people with mental health and learning difficulties, although two people received personal care. Inspectors found that staff knew people well, supported their independence and helped them take part in activities and community life. Medicines, staffing, safeguarding and risk management were found to be safe.
The home was rated Good overall, with Safe and Well-led both rated Good. Only these two areas were inspected in this visit. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not reassessed and the overall rating used ratings from the previous inspection.
Staff know people well
The established staff team understood people's needs, preferences and routines. This supported continuity and personalised care.
“People were supported by staff that knew them well.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. People who could manage their own medicines were supported to do so safely.
“People were supported to take their medicines safely by staff that were trained in the administration of medicines.” from the report
Stable staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to provide one-to-one support for activities, outings and appointments. Many staff had worked at the home for several years.
“Many of the staff team had been employed at the service for many years.” from the report
Active oversight
Regular audits and checks were used to identify improvements. Action plans were monitored by management.
“A programme of audits and checks were completed at regular intervals and actions were taken to drive improvement.” from the report
Face mask use
needs fixingInspectors saw staff entering the home without face masks. The manager reminded staff and agreed to make sure masks were worn correctly.
“We were not assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure staff wear face masks correctly when required?
- 02How would you support my relative to manage or self-administer medicines, if they were able to do so?
- 03How are positive behaviour support plans kept up to date when a person's needs or triggers change?
- 04How would you provide one-to-one support for outings, activities and appointments?
- 05What recording and risk-management improvements were introduced during or after this inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but medicines records and some audits needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 October 2018. One inspector spoke with two people, the manager and a care worker. They also reviewed two care records, quality checks, notifications and information from commissioners.
The home supported up to four people with mental health and learning difficulties. Three people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, detailed risk assessments, safe medicines support and staff who knew people well.
People were involved in their care, meals, activities and goals. Staff supported independence and access to health services. People described staff as kind, respectful and understanding.
The overall rating was Good, as were Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the rating stayed the same as at the previous comprehensive inspection in February 2016. Some audit systems were being improved, and there had not been a registered manager since 10 October 2017, although a manager was applying to register.
Personalised activities
People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities at home and in the community. Staff helped people pursue goals and maintain social contact.
“People continued to be encouraged to take part in activities which supported their interests.” from the report
Respect and independence
People helped make decisions about their care and daily lives. Staff supported people to go out, prepare food and manage their own money where appropriate.
“Staff understood it was a person's human right to be treated with respect and dignity and to be able to express their own views.” from the report
Good risk management
The home used individual risk assessments to support people to do things safely, while preserving their freedom and independence.
“These documents were individualised and provided staff with a clear description of any risks and guidance on the support people needed to manage these.” from the report
Medicine records were unclear
needs fixingSome medicine stock counts did not match the records. Staff were not consistent about when to record balances, although inspectors were confident medicines were given as required.
“We checked examples of boxed medication and found stock counts did not balance with what had been recorded.” from the report
Temperature checks needed better action
needs fixingRecords showed excessive temperatures above safe limits. The report says the audit and recording systems were still being strengthened.
“We found additional medicines checks had been introduced, however there was a lack of clarity and consistency in how these records were completed.” from the report
No registered manager at the time
minorThere had been no registered manager since 10 October 2017. A manager was in post and was applying to become registered.
“There had not been a registered manager at the home since 10 October 2017.” from the report
- 01Are the medicine stock records now accurate, and how do you check that stock counts match the records?
- 02What action is taken when temperature checks exceed safe limits?
- 03Is the manager now registered with the CQC, and if not, what is the current position?
- 04How are people involved in setting and reviewing their personal goals and activities?
- 05How do staff respond if a person does not return home when expected?
This unannounced inspection looked at all five quality areas and the overall rating; it was written in a shorter format because the overall Good rating had not changed since the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 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 Tiverton Drive
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 February 2014.
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 Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.