CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Trymview Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people felt safe and that risks, safeguarding, staffing and medicines were managed appropriately. They noted that some staff masks had slipped or were not fitted securely on occasion.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supported people with food, drink and healthcare. Supervision was not fully up to date, and one nutrition care plan had not been updated after the person's support changed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives gave positive feedback. Inspectors observed caring and respectful interactions, and found that staff understood people's personalities, preferences and needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, histories and preferences, and people and relatives were involved in planning care. Activities were an area the new manager intended to improve with people's involvement.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager and regional support provided a clear focus on improvement, with audits and action plans in place. Inspectors found discrepancies between paper and electronic records and recommended a review of the recording systems.
What inspectors found, November 2021
Trymview Hall was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and staff supervision needing improvement.
This was the home's first inspection since it registered. Two inspectors visited on 09 September 2021. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and managers, and reviewed care records, medicines records, complaints, audits and staff competency records.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were also rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives were positive about the care. Inspectors saw kind and respectful interactions, and found that risks, medicines, nutrition, healthcare and complaints were generally managed well.
The home had experienced disruption in its management arrangements. A new manager was in post and was working to improve staff supervision, activities and the way records were kept. Inspectors recommended reviewing the recording systems because some paper and electronic records did not match or were difficult to find.
Kind, respectful care
People and relatives were happy with the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect.
“We observed caring and respectful interactions between staff and people throughout the inspection” from the report
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's personalities, preferences and important care needs. They used this knowledge to provide personalised support.
“It was clear that staff knew people's personalities very well” from the report
Safe medicines management
Inspectors found no concerns with medicines. Storage, temperature checks, administration records and staff competency checks were in place.
“We found no concerns with medicines.” from the report
Good food and drink support
People were offered choices at mealtimes and had plenty to drink. The chef understood people's dietary needs and staff monitored fluid intake where needed.
“The midday meal was a positive experience.” from the report
Care records did not always match
needs fixingSome paper and electronic records contained different information, and one care plan had not been updated after a person's needs changed. Inspectors recommended a review of the recording systems.
“We recommend a review of recording systems to ensure they are updated as required and all information is easily accessible.” from the report
Staff supervision was not fully up to date
needs fixingThe manager said previous management disruption had left some staff without up-to-date supervision. The new manager was prioritising this work.
“The manager told us that due to some previous disruption in the management arrangements for the home, not all staff were up to date with supervision.” from the report
Some masks were not secure
minorInspectors were assured about the home's infection control arrangements, but observed occasions when staff masks had slipped or were not fitted securely.
“We did feedback that on occasion we observed staff with masks that had slipped or weren't fitted securely.” from the report
Activities were still being improved
minorThe manager said activities were a priority for improvement and intended to involve people in deciding what activities and entertainment they wanted.
“The manager told us activities were a priority for them to improve” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to make sure paper and electronic care records match?
- 02Are all staff now receiving regular supervision and support?
- 03What activities are currently available, and how are residents involved in choosing them?
- 04How do you check that staff wear infection control masks securely?
- 05How would staffing levels change if the home became fuller than it was at the inspection?
This was the first planned, announced inspection and covered all five key questions; infection prevention and control was also specifically checked under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 November 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe infection control and improving leadership, but staff confidence and teamwork still needed attention.
This was the home’s first inspection activity. It was a targeted inspection on 27 January 2021, prompted by concerns about whistle-blowing and safeguarding processes. Inspectors observed care, spoke with staff and reviewed records and policies.
Inspectors found that people were safe. Safeguarding processes had improved, infection control measures were in place, and the home was exceptionally clean. Families’ contact with people living at the home had also been supported during the pandemic.
The management team was focused on improving the service. However, some staff were still reluctant to raise concerns with the registered manager, and teamwork was described as somewhat fragmented.
The home was not given an overall rating. Only parts of Safe and Well-led were inspected, so these areas were recorded as inspected but not rated. The other three areas were not assessed.
Infection control
Inspectors found strong measures to reduce the risk of infection. The home was exceptionally clean and staff understood the need for enhanced cleaning.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safeguarding improvements
Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and the report says processes had improved after earlier concerns.
“Improvements had been made following previous safeguarding concerns raised in the home and how these had been managed and processed.” from the report
Family contact and emotional support
The home used different ways to keep people in contact with their families during the pandemic and recognised feelings such as anxiety, sadness and loss.
“The emotional wellbeing of people and their families had been supported throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Quality improvement
The management team used audits and additional management support to monitor the service and identify improvements.
“Good quality assurance systems were in place and based upon regular, scheduled audits, which identified any action required to make improvements.” from the report
Staff confidence to raise concerns
needs fixingNot all staff felt confident reporting concerns directly to the registered manager. The home was working to improve support networks and communication.
“However not all staff felt confident to report concerns to the registered manager and on several occasions contacted CQC in the first instance.” from the report
Fragmented teamwork
needs fixingInspectors found that the staff group did not yet work as one fully cohesive team. Building trust, communication and staff involvement remained ongoing work.
“The cohesivity of the whole staff group was a little fragmented and this was acknowledged by all.” from the report
Further safeguarding training
minorThe regional director recommended additional safeguarding training for the registered manager when it became available.
“The regional director recommended that the registered manager attend additional safeguarding training with Bristol Local Authority when this was available.” from the report
- 01How can staff currently raise concerns if they do not feel able to speak to the registered manager?
- 02What changes have been made since the inspection to improve teamwork and communication?
- 03Has the recommended additional safeguarding training for the registered manager taken place?
- 04How are infection control checks and cleaning of frequently touched surfaces monitored now?
- 05When will the home next receive a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions?
This was a targeted inspection of specific parts of Safe and Well-led, including infection control, safeguarding and leadership; the other three key questions were not assessed and the home remains unrated. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 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.
Every inspection of Trymview Hall
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 November 2019.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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 £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.