CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tudor House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff with appropriate skills and safe recruitment checks. Medicines were given as prescribed, and risks, safeguarding and infection control were managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had assessments and support from trained staff. They were supported with food, healthcare, community access and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be warm, friendly, encouraging and positive. People and relatives said staff were kind, respectful and familiar with their routines.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were personalised and communication needs were recorded. People were supported to follow interests, take part in activities and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager, a consistent staff team and regular quality checks. People, relatives and staff were involved in giving feedback and improving the service.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and rights checks still being reviewed.
This was an unannounced inspection. One inspector visited on 20 June 2019 and reviewed records, medicines, staff files and management information. They spoke with three people, three relatives, staff, the manager and a professional who knew the home.
The home provides short-term stays and personal care for up to four people with a learning disability and/or autism. Four people were using it at the time. Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines practice, clean surroundings and systems to learn from incidents.
People received care from skilled and kind staff. Their support was personalised, and they were helped to make choices, take part in activities, eat well and access health and community services. Inspectors also found good management, regular checks and involvement from people and relatives.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection on 2 November 2016.
Consistent staff
People and relatives described a stable staff team. Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely.
“There were enough staff to support people in a safe way. The rotas were organised to cover the service effectively.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans described people's needs, wishes and preferences. Staff used this information to provide individual care.
“Support plans were person centred and written in a clear and respectful way.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used weekly and monthly checks to monitor care. Incidents were reviewed and learning was shared with staff.
“A quality assurance system was in place. Checks and audits were undertaken weekly and monthly to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Capacity and rights checks
needs fixingThe manager found that some people's capacity assessments needed reviewing to make sure their rights and freedoms were fully addressed. This review was under way after the inspection.
“People's capacity assessments were being reviewed, to ensure their rights and freedoms were being fully addressed by the provider, whilst people were in their care.” from the report
Some personal information was missing
minorThe report says the home did not yet routinely ask about people's ethnicity, culture and sexual orientation as part of assessment. The manager agreed to add these conversations.
“They agreed to start having these conversations with people and their families as part of the assessment process so important information about them was not missing.” from the report
- 01How have you reviewed people's capacity assessments since the inspection, and how do you record their rights and freedoms?
- 02How do you make sure any restrictions on activities or community access are the least restrictive option?
- 03How do you now record information about a person's ethnicity, culture and sexual orientation?
- 04How do you ensure the same familiar staff support my relative during each short stay?
- 05How do you make sure the service can meet my relative's needs and provide the short-stay dates we require?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, and all five ratings were Good; the previous overall rating was from 2 November 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 July 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised respite care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 02 November 2016. The home provided respite accommodation and personal care for up to four people with a learning disability who needed 24-hour support. Three people were staying there on the inspection day.
The inspector spoke with people using the service, relatives, the manager and care staff. They reviewed care records, medicine charts, staff recruitment records, staffing information, complaints and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe and supported by enough suitably trained staff. Medicines were stored and given safely. Care was tailored to people's needs, choices and routines, and staff treated people with kindness and respect.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the home had clear checks on quality and safety, and that people's views were used to improve the service.
Good risk management
Risks were assessed before each person's stay. Staff knew how to reduce risks while supporting people's independence.
“Risks to people were well managed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences and individual needs. Staff refreshed their knowledge when different people came to stay.
“People received personalised care that met their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, choice and independence were respected.
“People's privacy and dignity was respected and their independence encouraged.” from the report
Strong management checks
The manager and provider used audits, meetings and surveys to check the quality and safety of the service.
“The service had an effective quality assurance system. The quality of the service provided was regularly monitored and people were asked for their views.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you check that our relative's medicines arrive with them and are recorded correctly at the start of each respite stay?
- 02How will you update our relative's care plan and risk assessment before each visit?
- 03How will you support our relative's usual day activities, routines and preferred activities while they are staying?
- 04Who will be responsible for the home if the registered manager is absent, and how can our family contact them?
- 05How will you involve our relative and family in reviewing the care provided after each stay?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including discussions with people, relatives, staff and management and reviews of care, medicine, staffing and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 2016 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 Tudor House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 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 31 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
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.