CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Trafalgar House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely and there were enough staff to provide required support. Inspectors noted reliance on agency staff and some occasions when people could not go out at their preferred time.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. People were helped to make decisions, eat and drink according to their choices, access healthcare and live as independently as possible.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew their interests, communication needs and routines, and supported them to make choices about daily life.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were personalised and updated when people's needs changed. People were supported with communication, relationships, activities, work experience and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The managers had created a more open and less restrictive culture and worked with people, relatives and professionals. Inspectors found that some reviews and identified trends were not always recorded clearly.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but staffing and record-keeping still needed attention.
This was the first inspection since the home was newly registered. Inspectors visited on 27 and 31 January 2022. They reviewed records, observed care, spoke with people, staff, relatives and health professionals, and checked infection control and COVID-19 vaccination arrangements.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received their medicines safely, had enough staff support and were helped to access healthcare, food, activities and the local community.
Staff knew people well and supported them to make choices, build independence and live with as few restrictions as possible. The inspection also found some reliance on agency staff, occasions when outings had been delayed, and records that did not always show people's involvement in reviews or record identified trends.
This means the home met the CQC standard for good care at the time of the inspection. It was not rated Outstanding, and the report identified areas where the home needed to keep improving.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday decisions, use the home freely and take more control over their lives. The home was working to reduce unnecessary restrictions.
“This is our home, it's up to us.” from the report
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Staff understood people's personalities, communication styles, interests and triggers. Inspectors saw people appearing comfortable and confident around staff.
“People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and wanted to advocate for people's rights” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in local activities and pursue ambitions, including art, music and work experience.
“One person had entered and won a local art competition to have their art displayed locally.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff were trained and assessed before giving medicines. The home used detailed guidance for medicines given when needed and worked to reduce unnecessary medication.
“Systems were in place to ensure medicines were managed safely. Staff received medicine training and had their competency assessed” from the report
Agency staffing
needs fixingThe home relied on agency staff, although inspectors found that regular agency workers understood people's needs. Staffing levels had also affected when some people could go out.
“There was a reliance on the use of agency staff. Agency staff were regular to the home and had a good understanding of people” from the report
Delayed outings
needs fixingThere had been occasions when people could not go out when they wanted because of staffing numbers. The home said it rearranged trips for another time of day.
“There had been occasions where people had not been able to go out when they wanted to due to staffing numbers.” from the report
Care review records
needs fixingStaff said they discussed reviews with people, but the records did not show whether people had been involved. The manager agreed this needed to be addressed.
“We found key worker reviews did not appear to involve the person.” from the report
Recording trends
minorManagers identified themes and trends, including staff injuries, but one area of analysis had not been recorded. The manager said this would be put in place.
“They were able to identify if there were any themes or trends. However, this had not been recorded.” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorSome relatives were unsure what was happening after changes in the registered manager and apparent provider. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“However, some relatives said they felt unsure of what was happening at the home since there had been a change of registered manager” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff currently work at the home, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02How do you make sure residents can go out when they want to?
- 03How do you record each person's involvement in key worker reviews?
- 04What changes have been made to record and act on incident trends?
- 05How will relatives be kept informed about changes in managers or the provider?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, including infection control and COVID-19 vaccination arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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.
Every inspection of Trafalgar House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2020.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.