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 to meet people's needs safely. They also found safe medicines procedures, suitable risk assessments, good safeguarding knowledge and clean premises.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in and reviewed when they changed. Staff were trained, people received suitable food and drink, and staff supported access to health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people's preferences and supported them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were offered choices and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs and communication methods. People enjoyed a range of activities, visits and trips, and complaints were dealt with promptly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team promoted a positive, person-centred culture. Regular audits were completed and actions were taken when improvements were needed.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no major shortfalls reported.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 and 20 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable training, clean premises and care tailored to people's needs.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They were supported to make choices, stay independent, enjoy activities and keep in touch with family and the local community. Complaints were handled promptly and audits were used to make improvements.
Kind and respectful care
Staff took time to know people well and supported them with patience, dignity and compassion.
“People were supported with kindness, respect and compassion by a staff team that took the time to get to know their likes, dislikes and preferences well.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff and saw medicines being given safely. Staff had medicines training and regular checks of their competence.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was adapted to people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People were encouraged to make choices and stay as independent as possible.
“People received personalised care which met their needs.” from the report
Activities and community links
People took part in activities inside and outside the home, including trips, gardening, cooking and community events.
“People took part in activities both in and out of the service.” from the report
Positive management
The management team used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements.
“The registered manager and the operations manager completed regular audits to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Involvement in care plans
minorSome people could not recall being involved in creating and updating their care plans. The manager showed inspectors evidence that people and families had been involved, but this is worth checking directly.
“People could not recall being involved in creating and updating their care plans.” from the report
- 01How are residents and families involved in creating and updating care plans?
- 02What changes have been made since the 2019 inspection?
- 03Were the planned changes to colours in bathrooms and memory boxes on bedroom doors completed?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels remain safe when there are vacancies or agency staff are used?
- 05What activities and community visits are available for someone with my relative's interests and needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 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, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 25 October 2016. The inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, checked care and medicines records, reviewed staff files and examined the home's quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were found to be safe, supported by trained staff, involved in their care and treated with kindness and respect.
The inspectors found that the provider had acted on problems identified at the October 2015 inspection. Staffing, staff training, supervision, care records, risk assessments, cleanliness and quality monitoring had all improved.
A new manager was in post and was applying to register with the CQC at the time of the inspection. The report says the managers were visible and approachable, and that quality checks were being used to make further improvements.
Previous problems corrected
The inspectors found improvements in every area raised at the previous inspection, including staffing, training, records, cleanliness and management.
“During this comprehensive inspection we found that improvements had been made in all areas that we had previously identified.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored, administered and audited safely, with no gaps found in the records checked.
“There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors observed patient, friendly interactions and respect for privacy and dignity.
“People and their relatives spoke positively about staff. They told us that staff were caring, kind and friendly.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and backgrounds. People were involved in decisions about their care and could choose aspects of their daily routine.
“We found that the care plans reflected people's individual needs and had been updated regularly with changes as they occurred.” from the report
Open management
The managers were visible and approachable. Staff, people and relatives were encouraged to give feedback, and audits were linked to action plans.
“The service had a positive, open culture amongst the staff team and staff felt management were supportive and approachable.” from the report
Manager registration was pending
minorAt the time of the inspection, a new manager was still applying to register with the CQC. The report does not say that this caused a problem with people's care.
“A new manager had been appointed and was in the process of applying to the Commission to register.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's CQC registration application now been completed, and who is legally responsible for managing the home?
- 02How do you currently check that staffing levels match each person's needs?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and how are families told about important changes?
- 04What quality audits are carried out now, and how do you make sure actions are completed?
- 05What activities are currently available, and how are residents' individual preferences used to plan them?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and providing an overall rating for the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 2017 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
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 January 2011.
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 Central Bedfordshire
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 £1,260 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.