CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Trevaylor Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by safeguarding systems, risk assessments, staff checks and medicines processes. Inspectors did find some obstructed fire exits, propped-open fire doors and unsecured rooms containing items that could pose a risk.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with eating, drinking, healthcare and decision-making. Staff training was in place, although some one-to-one support meetings for staff were overdue.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating or detailed findings for this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating or detailed findings for this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective oversight, audits, communication with families and partnership working with health and social care professionals. The manager had identified the burden of electronic recording and planned a review.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support but some fire doors and potentially risky rooms were not always secured.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 21 March 2023. They toured the building, reviewed six people's care plans and risk assessments, checked staff records, and spoke with people, staff, relatives and a healthcare professional.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found safeguarding systems, medicines management, care planning, food support and leadership were generally effective.
Inspectors found some fire exits obstructed, some fire doors propped open and some rooms containing risky items not always locked. They recommended regular checks. Staff also reported pressure from short-notice absences, and some staff supervision meetings were overdue.
The rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 12 June 2021. The inspection was prompted by concerns about staffing, equipment, mealtime support and medicine errors, but these concerns were not upheld overall.
Safeguarding
The home had systems to protect people from abuse, and staff understood what to do if concerns were raised. Inspectors found safeguarding concerns had been reported appropriately.
“The provider had effective safeguarding systems in place and staff knew what actions to take to help ensure people were protected from harm or abuse.” from the report
Medicines
People received prescribed medicines safely. Electronic records and regular audits were used, and extra controls had been introduced after a medicine error.
“People received their prescribed medicines in a safe way.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People had choices and their dietary needs were recorded. Staff with extra training supported people who needed help with eating and drinking.
“Specific staff, who had been given additional training, were allocated to people who had been identified as needing support with their dietary intake.” from the report
Communication with families
Relatives said they were kept informed about changes in people's needs and incidents. Inspectors also found families were invited to meetings and their views were considered.
“Relatives were kept informed of any changes in people's needs or incidents that occurred.” from the report
Management and improvement
The manager and provider had a quality audit programme and worked with healthcare professionals. Inspectors found the service had improved since earlier years.
“There was a robust audit and quality assurance programme in place to measure the services' performance.” from the report
Fire doors and secure rooms
seriousSome fire exits were obstructed, some fire doors were propped open, and rooms containing items such as sharps boxes and oxygen were not always locked. Inspectors recommended regular checks.
“We found one fire door, next to residents' rooms, which opened easily to an open descending staircase.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingInspectors found enough staff on duty during the visit, but staff reported pressure caused by short-notice absences, especially at weekends. The home also had vacant posts and used agency staff.
“Staff told us that they were being put under pressure by regular short notice staff absences, especially at weekends.” from the report
Staff supervision
minorSome staff were overdue one-to-one meetings about their work and development. The manager had a plan to address this.
“Some staff were overdue for this support and the registered manager had a clear plan to address this.” from the report
Recording workload
needs fixingStaff said electronic recording took a lot of time and could reduce the time available for people. The manager was aware of this and planned a review.
“I do feel that the priority on recording has overtaken the care provision, we spend so much time recording our actions that we don't always have the amount of time we would like to spend with people” from the report
- 01What regular checks are now made of fire exits, fire doors and rooms containing sharps boxes, oxygen or other risky items?
- 02How are short-notice staff absences and vacant posts being managed, especially at weekends?
- 03How do you make sure agency staff know people's needs and care plans?
- 04Have all overdue staff one-to-one meetings been completed?
- 05What changes are being made to reduce the time staff spend on electronic recording?
This inspection was prompted by concerns about staffing, equipment, mealtime support and medicine errors, and the report gives ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led only. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 2023 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, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with substantial improvement since earlier inspections.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 23 May 2019. Inspectors reviewed the service's records and previous information, looked around the home, observed care and spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable care plans, regular staff training and kind, respectful care.
The report says the home had improved from Requires Improvement in 2018 and Inadequate in 2017. Earlier problems with care records, food and fluid monitoring, governance and conditions linked to deprivation of liberty authorisations had been addressed. The report says the improvements were embedded, but CQC would continue monitoring information about the home.
Kind and respectful care
Staff spent time with people, supported their choices and protected their privacy. Relatives and people described the care as compassionate.
“People were supported in a dignified and respectful manner.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and risks. They were reviewed monthly or when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were developed which reflected people's individual needs across a range of areas.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough care staff and nurses, safe recruitment checks and medicines given by trained, assessed staff.
“There were sufficient numbers of care staff and nurses on duty to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered group activities, entertainers, church services and support for some people to go out into the community.
“The service employed three activity co-ordinators to help organise a range of activities and events.” from the report
Improved management oversight
Audits, reports and management reviews were being used to check the quality of care and drive improvement.
“These reports showed improvements were being made and the inspection findings evidenced these changes had been embedded.” from the report
Recent history of poor ratings
minorThe current Good rating followed an Inadequate rating in 2017 and Requires Improvement in 2018. Families should ask how the improvements have been sustained since this inspection.
“The service had been rated as Inadequate at the previous inspection in October 2017.” from the report
- 01What checks are now used to make sure care records remain complete and up to date?
- 02How do you monitor staffing levels across the different units, including the dementia unit?
- 03How are any conditions attached to a person's DoLS authorisation recorded and checked?
- 04How are food and fluid records reviewed when someone is at risk of losing weight?
- 05What activities and support are available for the person I am considering placing here?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care, and it also checked whether previous registration conditions had been met. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 June 2019 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 Trevaylor Manor
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 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 17 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.