CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at University Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and there were enough staff. Risks were assessed and reviewed, safeguarding procedures were understood, and medicines were given and recorded safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with food, health appointments and specialist services. Staff had training, and mental capacity and liberty restrictions were considered in line with legal requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind and caring. Staff knew people's histories and interests, respected privacy and relationships, and supported people to make choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people were involved in reviewing them. People could choose activities, work or volunteering, and knew how to raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a registered manager and regular checks were made on medicines, incidents, training and safety. People, families and staff were encouraged to give their views.
What inspectors found, January 2020
University Care was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no breaches reported.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 November 2019. One inspector spoke with three people, two staff members and the registered manager. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records, and received feedback from three professionals.
The home supported four people who may have learning disabilities or mental health needs. People told inspectors they felt safe, had enough staff and received their medicines correctly. Staff understood how to manage risks, protect people from harm and support people during distress.
People were involved in decisions about their care and daily lives. They chose their meals and activities, developed living skills and were supported to become more independent. Inspectors also found kind relationships, personalised care plans, access to health services and a clear complaints process.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection on 6 July 2017.
Safe staffing and medicines
People said there were enough staff, and the home used a stable team without agency staff. Inspectors found that medicines were given correctly and staff had suitable training.
“People received their prescribed medicines at the right time and in the correct way.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose their meals, activities and how they spent their time. They were supported to learn daily living skills, work or volunteer, and become more independent.
“People were encouraged to maintain their home and be involved with activities of daily living.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
People had positive relationships with staff, who understood their personal histories and interests. Privacy, dignity and important relationships were respected.
“People liked living in their home and told us the staff were kind and caring and were always happy to help.” from the report
Strong management
The manager worked alongside staff, knew the people living at the home and carried out regular checks. People, families and staff could share views and suggest improvements.
“Frequent quality checks were completed by the registered manager which included checks of medicines management, incidents, staff training needs and health and safety.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular mental health or learning disability needs, including any risks of self-harm, alcohol or substance abuse?
- 02How would my relative be involved in creating and reviewing their support plan?
- 03How do you support people to develop independence, including cooking, shopping, work or volunteering?
- 04How would you involve our family in care decisions and respond if we had a concern or complaint?
- 05If my relative lacked capacity for a decision, how would you involve them and make sure any restriction was lawful?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records and safety matters needing attention.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 16 June 2017. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff and visiting healthcare professionals. They reviewed records for all four people, staff recruitment files, medicines information, training, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicine systems, positive relationships and care that followed people's needs, choices and routines.
A few improvements were identified. A first-floor bathroom window did not have a restrictor. People's preferred ways of taking medicines were not recorded. One person's mental capacity assessments needed further review. The manager said these matters would be addressed.
Safe staffing
The home had a stable team and enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support where required.
“The staff we spoke with all felt that there were enough staff in place to support people safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships and adapted how they communicated. People were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected.
“People and the staff who supported them got on well and had developed positive relationships based on mutual respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's routines, life histories, preferences and support needs. Staff used this information in day-to-day care.
“Staff knew people's life history, personal preferences and likes and dislikes and we saw them use this information when supporting people.” from the report
Good leadership
The manager was viewed positively and encouraged staff and people to share their views. Audits were used to monitor the home and identify improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to help drive continued improvements at the home.” from the report
Bathroom window safety
needs fixingA first-floor bathroom window did not have a restrictor. Inspectors said this could allow someone to get into or out of the home without staff knowing.
“We did note the window in the bathroom on the first floor did not have a restrictor on it” from the report
Medicine preferences not recorded
minorThe records did not state how people preferred to take their medicines. Staff knew these preferences, but inspectors said recording them would support comfort and individual choice.
“We did note that the way people preferred to take their medicines had not been recorded.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingOne person would have benefited from further mental capacity assessments in a small number of areas. The manager said these would be reviewed.
“One person would have benefited from further assessments in a small number of areas” from the report
- 01Has the first-floor bathroom window been fitted with a restrictor, and how is this safety risk now checked?
- 02How are each person's preferred ways of taking medicines recorded and kept up to date?
- 03Were the further mental capacity assessments completed, and how are best-interest decisions recorded?
- 04How are staffing levels adjusted when people need one-to-one support or have activities outside the home?
- 05How are people involved in reviewing their care plans, activities and daily routines?
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 July 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 University Care
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 2014.
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.