CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ulcomb House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks, medicines, staffing, infection control and accidents were managed through established systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff had the training and support needed to provide care. People had access to health professionals and were supported with food, exercise and independence skills.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respect and patience. People were involved in decisions, and their privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, regularly reviewed and updated. People received information in accessible formats and knew how to make a complaint.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider had a clear vision and carried out checks on areas such as medicines, care plans, training and safety. The previous shortfall in monitoring staff training had been addressed.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Ulcomb House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 05 July 2019. One inspector spoke with a resident, a relative, the manager and staff. They also checked care plans, medicine records, staff files, training records and service management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and staff who understood people's needs. People were treated with kindness, involved in decisions and supported to develop independence.
The previous inspection had rated the service Requires Improvement. At this inspection, the home had improved staff training, the environment and its management checks. A previous breach about monitoring staff training was met.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff listen to people, communicate patiently and respect their privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's choices, relationships, abilities and support needs. People were involved in planning their care.
“People received a person-centred service that met their needs and helped them to achieve their goals and ambitions.” from the report
Building independence
People were supported to cook, manage daily tasks and develop skills for more independent living.
“The service aimed to support people to learn the skills they needed to move to more independent settings.” from the report
Improved staff training
The home had acted on the previous inspection's recommendation. Training was updated and staff received regular supervision and support.
“We found that improvements had been made.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider carried out regular checks and used feedback from people, relatives and staff to improve the service.
“The registered manager continued to carry out a number of audits and checks to make sure a safe and effective service was provided.” from the report
End of life plans were still developing
minorNo one was receiving end of life care during the inspection. Staff had started discussions, but plans were still being developed for people who might need this support in future.
“Staff told us that they had had discussions with some people's relatives and were working to develop end of life plans.” from the report
- 01How will you support my relative to develop independence and work towards their personal goals?
- 02How will you communicate with my relative if they need easy-read information, pictures or other communication support?
- 03What end of life planning has now been completed, including my relative's wishes and religious preferences?
- 04How often are staff training, medicines and care plans checked, and what happens if a problem is found?
- 05How will you involve our family in care planning and reviews?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and the previous Requires Improvement rating had improved to Good in all areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 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, July 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but staff training and checks were not always kept up to date.
Inspectors visited on 10 May 2018. They looked at care records, medicines, staffing, training, complaints, accidents, the building and quality checks. They observed care and spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines, suitable risk plans and kind support. People were supported to make choices, build independence, communicate and take part in activities.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led. Some staff training was overdue, including health and safety, fire safety and challenging behaviour. The building also had tired decoration, and action was not always taken quickly when audits identified problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement, down from Good at the previous inspection on 16 February 2016. The home breached Regulation 17 because staff training had not been kept up to date through effective governance.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were calm, patient and compassionate. They respected privacy and people's wishes, including when someone did not want to meet the inspectors.
“Staff continued to treat people with compassion and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans included people's needs, interests, goals and preferences. Staff used this information to provide personalised care.
“Peoples support plans were detailed, reflected people's needs and provided staff with the guidance they needed to support people.” from the report
Building independence
People were supported to learn daily living skills such as cooking, laundry, budgeting and personal care. Some were working towards more independent living.
“People were supported to learn new skills and increase their independence.” from the report
Overdue staff training
seriousTraining was overdue for some staff in health and safety, fire safety and challenging behaviour. The report says training had not been arranged in line with the provider's policy.
“Six staff were not up to date with health and safety training at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Weak follow-through on checks
seriousThe home carried out audits, but did not always act when they found problems. This led to a breach of the good governance regulation.
“However, where issues were identified action had not always been taken.” from the report
Worn decoration
minorSome communal areas needed repainting and some furniture was scuffed and worn. The manager had raised this, but there was no planned date for the work.
“Some areas of the services décor were tired and in need of updating.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the overdue health and safety, fire safety and challenging behaviour training?
- 02How do you check that staff who may need to support challenging behaviour understand safe restraint and de-escalation?
- 03What action has been taken since the inspection to make sure audit findings are dealt with promptly?
- 04Has the tired decoration and worn furniture been replaced or redecorated, and what is the timetable?
- 05What improvements have been made since the previous Good rating in February 2016?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five areas; the report describes it as announced in its background section but as unannounced in its summary. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 July 2018 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 Ulcomb House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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.