CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at University Care 2
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and risks were assessed and reviewed. Inspectors identified a failure to follow guidance for a person at risk of choking, although the person was not harmed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. People received help with food, healthcare, independence and mental health needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect, knew their individual needs and encouraged choice and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's health needs, preferences and interests. People were supported to take part in activities, use the community and raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had clear values, regular audits and an improvement plan. People and staff said they felt listened to and valued.
What inspectors found, April 2019
University Care 2 was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some safety and record-keeping issues to address.
This was the home’s first inspection since registration. It was a planned, comprehensive inspection on 13 March 2019. One inspector spoke with people, a relative, managers and support workers. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff training and recruitment, complaints, meetings, audits and safety checks.
Inspectors found that people felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's needs and supported choice, independence, community activities, healthcare and diet. The home had enough staff, suitable training, safe medicine systems and regular quality checks.
There were some issues to improve. One behavioural support plan did not contain enough detail. A staff member had not followed guidance to stay with a person at risk of choking while they ate. One medicine record was missing a staff signature. The provider said it would take action.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says legal requirements were met.
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring, polite and supportive. Inspectors saw natural and attentive interactions.
“People were positive about living at the service, they felt staff understood their needs and treated them very well, supporting them to remain safe.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were encouraged to make decisions, develop daily living skills and use the local community. Staff supported activities and personal lifestyle choices.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Good staff training
Staff received an induction, relevant training and ongoing support. Managers observed staff practice to check their competence.
“People were effectively supported by staff who had received a structured induction, training identified by the provider as required and ongoing support.” from the report
Strong management checks
The provider used daily, weekly and monthly audits covering areas such as medicines, incidents, health and safety and support plans.
“There was a system of audits and processes in place that continually checked on quality and safety.” from the report
Choking support was not followed
seriousA staff member did not stay with a person who was at risk of choking while they ate, despite the person's support plan saying this was required. The person was not harmed, and the manager said immediate action would be taken.
“It was apparent the staff member had not remained with the person as described in their support plan guidance.” from the report
Behavioural plan lacked detail
needs fixingOne behavioural support plan did not explain clearly how the person might appear when anxious or what could trigger this. Staff knew the information, so inspectors described it as a recording issue.
“We identified one person's behavioural plan lacked specific detail of how the person may present if anxious and no detail of the possible triggers that may impact on the person.” from the report
One medicine signature was missing
minorMedicine systems were otherwise safe, but one administration record did not have a staff signature. The deputy manager said this would be discussed with the staff member.
“Medicine administration records showed one missing staff signature.” from the report
Hand hygiene information was not displayed
minorThe home was clean and staff followed infection control practices. However, hand hygiene information was not displayed when inspectors visited, and the manager acted to put it up.
“Hand hygiene information was not displayed, but the registered manager acted to get this information displayed.” from the report
- 01What immediate action was taken after the staff member did not follow the guidance for the person at risk of choking?
- 02How do you now check that staff stay with this person while they eat, as required by the support plan?
- 03Has the behavioural support plan been updated with the person's signs of anxiety and possible triggers?
- 04How do you check medicine administration records for missing signatures?
- 05Have hand hygiene instructions been displayed, and how is infection control practice checked?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the home’s accommodation and care, with all five CQC questions rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 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.
Every inspection of University Care 2
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 March 2018.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.