CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Turketel Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, appropriate risk plans and safe medicines management. Staff understood safeguarding and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed using person-centred planning and positive behaviour support. Staff supported eating, health appointments, communication and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with compassion, dignity and respect. People and their relatives were involved in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People chose their daily activities and were supported to maintain relationships, use communication tools and develop independence. Relatives said they could raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff shared a clear focus on person-centred care. Audits, feedback and learning from incidents were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, personalised support with safe staffing, medicines and strong opportunities for choice and independence.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 January 2020. One inspector observed care, spoke with four staff and one health professional, reviewed care, medicines and management records, and later spoke with two relatives.
The home supports six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found staff knew people well, treated them with kindness and supported their communication, choices, health, activities and independence. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and safeguarding arrangements were judged safe.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating in each area as at the previous inspection, published in May 2017.
Kind, trusting relationships
Staff spent time getting to know people and tailored support to them. Inspectors saw that people were relaxed with staff and sought them out.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and who treated them with care and compassion.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose what to do each day and were supported to try activities, prepare food and build communication and household skills.
“People decided on a daily basis what they would like to do, and staff supported this.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
The home had enough staff for people's needs, used safe recruitment checks and kept detailed medicines guidance. Staff giving medicines were trained and assessed as competent.
“Staff who administered medicines had been trained and assessed as competent to do so.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff worked with health professionals and relatives to help people attend appointments and manage health conditions, including when healthcare visits could cause distress.
“A health care professional told us that staff were proactive and worked hard to follow their advice when supporting people.” from the report
Open management
Relatives and staff described the manager as approachable. The home used audits, feedback and incident learning to monitor care.
“The manager and provider's quality team carried out a range of audits to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Manager registration was not complete
minorThe manager was in post but was not registered with CQC when inspectors visited. The report says the application process had started.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
End of life information still being added
minorNo one was receiving end of life care at the inspection. Staff had started recording what comforted people when unwell, but this information was still being added to care plans.
“Staff had begun recording information about what comforted people when they were unwell, and this was being added to their end of life care plans.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now completed the application to become registered with CQC?
- 02How do you record and review what helps my relative communicate their choices and show when they are unhappy or distressed?
- 03How will my relative choose daily activities, and how do you support them to try new activities safely?
- 04How are medicines given in the way my relative prefers, including any medicines prescribed to be used when needed?
- 05Have you completed end of life information about what comforts each person when they are unwell?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 2020 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a fire safety recommendation still to address.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 30 March 2017. One inspector met five of the six people living at the home, spoke with staff and social care professionals, and reviewed care plans, medicines, staffing, safety records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, well-managed medicines, respectful care, support with health needs and activities, and stronger systems for checking quality.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Earlier problems with staff supervision, medicines, complaints and quality monitoring had been addressed. Inspectors made one recommendation about fitting a fire door guard. They found no breaches of regulations during this inspection.
Medicines improved
The previous concerns about medicine security, storage and handwritten changes had been addressed. Records were completed appropriately and only trained staff administered medicines.
“Medicines were managed well and previous concerns regarding security, storage and handwritten changes on medicine administration records had been addressed.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Staffing levels provided one-to-one support every day, with extra cover for some activities. Recruitment checks and staff training supported safe care.
“There were enough skilled staff to support people every day to lead a fuller life.” from the report
Respectful communication
Staff understood how people communicated and responded to their individual needs. Inspectors observed patience, kindness, privacy and respect.
“Staff interactions with people were gentle, patient and respectful.” from the report
Personalised independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, develop skills and take part in activities suited to their interests and abilities.
“People were supported and enabled to develop their independence and learn new things within the limitations of their abilities and at a pace to suit them.” from the report
Fire door guard
needs fixingA previous fire risk assessment had recommended a door guard for one bedroom. Inspectors recommended that this be installed so far as possible to avoid compromising fire arrangements.
“We recommend that the provider seeks out a competent person to install a door guard as per a previous fire risk recommendation to ensure as far as possible fire arrangements are not compromised.” from the report
Access by stairs
needs fixingBedrooms were on the first floor and shared areas were on the ground floor. The report says the home is unsuitable for people whose mobility issues affect their use of stairs.
“the service is unsuitable for those with mobility issues that affect their use of stairs.” from the report
- 01Has the recommended door guard now been installed, and what arrangements are in place to keep the relevant bedroom and the home safe in a fire?
- 02How would you assess whether a person's mobility means the first-floor bedroom and ground-floor communal areas are suitable for them?
- 03How are newer staff supported to understand which external agencies they can contact if they have a safeguarding concern?
- 04How do you make sure one-to-one support is maintained each day, including when staff are absent?
- 05How will my relative's activities and daily routines be reviewed if their interests, mood or support needs change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the whole service, including a review of improvements made after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 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 Turketel Road
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.