CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Uvedale Hall Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed through cleaning, ventilation, PPE, testing, screening and safe visiting arrangements. They were also told that staffing measures were in place to manage COVID-19-related pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and staffing arrangements, but take-up of essential care-giver visits was low.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 26 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
They found good infection control practices. The home was clean, PPE and testing were being used, and staff supported visits in line with the guidance in place at the time.
People and staff said there were enough staff. The home used its own bank staff where possible and usually used a preferred agency when agency workers were needed.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a new overall quality rating or a full set of ratings for all five areas.
Infection control
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with increased cleaning and good use of PPE and ventilation.
“Uvedale Hall Residential Home was clean and hygienic throughout with increased cleaning taking place across all aspects of the building.” from the report
Testing and vaccination checks
Testing was being carried out for people and staff. Vaccination records were monitored, and visiting professionals had their status checked.
“Vaccination records were monitored and stored by the registered manager for people, staff and regular visitors.” from the report
Staffing cover
People and staff said there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The home usually covered shifts with its own trained bank staff.
“Feedback from people who lived in the home and staff was that there were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Family visiting
The home provided several ways for people to keep in touch with family and friends, with screening, testing and booking arrangements to reduce infection risk.
“This enabled people to be supported to maintain relationships that were important to them and reduce the risk of isolation.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How did you follow up the low take-up of essential care givers, and can my relative have one if they want one?
- 02What visiting options are available now, and how do you manage screening, testing and bookings?
- 03How many permanent, bank and agency staff usually cover shifts, and what happens when staff are off sick or on holiday?
- 04How often are staff and residents tested, and how are infection outbreaks managed?
- 05If agency staff are needed, how do you make sure they know the people living in the home and their care needs?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide a full new rating for the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 2022 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, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a small number of staffing vacancies being covered.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 26 February 2020. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs, safe medicine systems, suitable training, personalised care and respectful support.
People enjoyed their meals and activities, were supported to make choices and maintain relationships, and had access to healthcare. The previous rating was also Good, published on 2 August 2017.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found there were consistently enough staff to meet people's assessed needs, and recruitment checks were completed before new staff started.
“There were consistently enough staff to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff positively. Inspectors saw staff respond promptly, offer reassurance and respect people's privacy and choices.
“Staff responded promptly to people's needs and provided reassurance.” from the report
Personalised support
Assessments and care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, histories and communication styles. People and families were involved in care planning.
“Each person's care plan was detailed and followed a procedure for completion while clearly recording the individual's needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had a daily programme of activities and were supported to maintain important relationships and receive visitors.
“Visitors were actively encouraged to visit and people were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorThere were a small number of staffing vacancies. The home had cover arrangements, including additional shifts agreed with staff.
“Senor staff were busy trying to recruit to a small number of staffing vacancies and cover arrangements were in place.” from the report
- 01How many staffing vacancies are there now, and how are shifts covered when staff are unavailable?
- 02Who is currently responsible for the home day to day, and is the registered manager now permanently back at the home?
- 03How would the home support my relative if they needed end of life care?
- 04Which activities would match my relative's interests, and how often could they access the local community?
- 05How will my relative and family be involved in care reviews and decisions about support?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the home does not provide nursing care. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 March 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 Uvedale Hall Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Uvedale Hall Residential Home →
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Uvedale Hall Residential Home →
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 December 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.