CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tynwald Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning and the home's infection control policies.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 7 April 2021. It looked at how well the home was preventing and controlling infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that visitors were managed safely, new people could move in safely, and staff used protective equipment correctly. People and staff were regularly tested, and relatives could visit in a dedicated room after a negative test.
The home was clean and had up-to-date infection control policies. It also used cleaning schedules, infection control audits and advice from specialist nurses.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. The Safe question was inspected but not rated, so this report does not assess all areas of care or give a standard Good or Requires Improvement judgement.
Safer visiting
Visitors could meet a named relative in a dedicated room after testing. The room was cleaned between appointments.
“These visits were by appointment so staff had sufficient time to thoroughly clean and disinfect the room between appointments.” from the report
Safe admissions
New people were tested, isolated for 14 days and monitored for symptoms during and after isolation.
“A negative test for COVID -19 and a 14-day isolation period were in place.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
There was enough protective equipment, and inspectors found it was used correctly. People and staff were regularly screened for COVID-19.
“There was enough personal protective equipment (PPE) including disposable gloves and aprons for staff and visitors.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had cleaning schedules and was described as neat and clean. Infection control audits were carried out and actions followed up.
“There were cleaning schedules in place. The service was neat and clean.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the home's current procedure for visits, including testing and cleaning between appointments?
- 02How are new residents currently tested, isolated and monitored for infection?
- 03How often are infection control audits carried out, and what actions have resulted from recent audits?
- 04What is the home's current process for testing residents and staff during an infection outbreak?
- 05Can you show us the most recent full CQC inspection rating, as this inspection was not rated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not assess the other areas of care or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 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, April 2020
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 March 2020. One inspector spoke with six people, seven staff and the management team. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training information and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people felt safe. Medicines were managed safely, risks were reviewed, staffing was kept under review and the home was clean. Care plans were up to date, staff were trained, and people were supported with food, drinks and health appointments.
People described staff as kind and respectful. They were involved in decisions about their care, supported to remain independent and offered a range of activities. The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
The previous rating, published in March 2019, was Requires Improvement. The provider had made improvements, including to medicines records and quality checks, and was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safe medicines management
The home had improved its medicines systems since the previous inspection. Records were accurate and staff were trained and checked as competent.
“Effective systems had been implemented and medicines records were accurate.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff spending time with people, respecting privacy and offering reassurance.
“People told us the staff were all kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's health, social and emotional needs, personal histories and preferences. People and relatives were involved in reviewing care when requested.
“People continued to received care and support that was tailored to and responsive to their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People had planned and spontaneous activities, including exercise, music and baking. The home also used photographs and video calls to help people stay in touch with relatives.
“Staff arranged planned activity sessions and there were many ad-hoc sessions which were prompted by what people fancied doing.” from the report
Improved leadership and monitoring
Quality and safety checks had improved since the last inspection. The management team used checks, meetings and feedback to identify and address shortfalls.
“There was a wide range of clear, effective and robust systems in place to monitor the quality of service delivered.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and regularly review my relative's specific health, safety and welfare risks?
- 02How do you make sure medicines are given on time and that any missed or refused doses are recorded accurately?
- 03How many staff will usually be on duty for my relative's needs, and what happens if there is an unexpected staff absence?
- 04How will my relative's preferred activities, routines, communication needs and relationships with family be included in their care plan?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing care and making best-interest decisions if needed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care and premises, covering all five CQC questions; it was planned because of the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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.
Every inspection of Tynwald Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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
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.