CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding and risk management. Inspectors found safe staffing, recruitment, infection control and medicines systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people received help from health professionals when needed. People were supported with consent, nutrition, hydration and suitable diets.
- Caring?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptional kindness and a strong person-centred culture. Staff anticipated people's needs and supported their dignity, independence, identity and wellbeing.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and histories. People were offered varied activities, community links and support to maintain relationships and interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff praised the management. Audits, surveys and reviews were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found kind, personalised support and well-managed care.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 and 21 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with 10 people, two relatives and 14 staff. They observed care, reviewed care and staff records, and checked policies and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. Caring was rated Outstanding, improving from Good at the previous inspection. People and relatives gave consistently positive feedback about the care.
Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly, staff were trained, and people's health and dietary needs were supported. Care was highly personal, with staff understanding people's histories, preferences and communication needs.
The report says activities had a strong effect on wellbeing. People were supported to keep relationships, follow interests, join community events and receive dignified end-of-life care. No breaches of regulations were recorded.
Exceptional kindness
Staff were described and observed as compassionate, respectful and highly attentive. They built strong relationships and helped people feel valued.
“Staff were exceptional at anticipating people's needs. We observed this throughout our inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff used people's past interests and identities to shape support. Examples included helping people with flower arranging, hairdressing and familiar sounds.
“There was a strong, visible person-centred culture. This was evident from all staff within all roles.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities were varied and linked to people's interests, wellbeing and sense of purpose. The home also supported links with families, children, local groups and the wider community.
“Activities formed an extremely important part of people's lives and had a positive impact on their wellbeing.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found suitable medicine checks, staff competency assessments and recruitment checks. Staff and relatives felt there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“Medicines were safely administered. Medicines administration records were appropriately signed by staff when administering a person's medicines.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received training in areas including safeguarding, dementia, nutrition, hydration and moving and handling. They also received supervision and appraisals.
“Staff received training, which enabled them to feel confident in meeting people's needs and recognising changes in people's health.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular health, mobility and communication needs?
- 02How would you use my relative's life history, interests and routines to plan their care?
- 03What activities would be available for my relative, including activities outside the home?
- 04How would you support my relative if they needed end-of-life care?
- 05How do you review care plans and risk assessments when someone's needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; no one was receiving end-of-life care during the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 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, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and strong safety systems, with some people saying they sometimes waited for help.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 July and 2 August 2016. One inspector spoke with people, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect. Care plans were detailed, activities were varied, and staff understood people's needs, including needs linked to dementia.
The inspection found that most aspects had been reviewed since the previous inspection in September 2014. People were safer, risk management had improved, and staff were involved in making further improvements.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and kindness. Staff spent time reassuring people and responding to their emotional needs.
“Staff were kind, caring and treated people with respect and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, communication needs, preferences and routines. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“Care plans were personalised to each person's needs.” from the report
Activities and independence
People could choose from many activities and outings based on their interests and past lives. Staff worked to support independence while managing risks.
“People had a wide range of activities available to them based on an understanding of their culture and background.” from the report
Improved safety and leadership
Inspectors found that safety and quality systems had been reviewed since the previous inspection. Staff were involved in improving the service.
“This inspection found that most aspects of the service had been completed reviewed.” from the report
Waiting for assistance
minorSome people said they sometimes had to wait for help, including when using call bells. Inspectors observed that people received care within a reasonable timescale, but this is worth discussing with the home.
“Some people said they sometimes had to wait for assistance.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells answered, particularly at night?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels and the flexible staffing arrangements continue to meet people's needs?
- 03How will you involve my relative or their representative in reviewing their care plan?
- 04What activities would you offer based on my relative's interests, background and abilities?
- 05How would you respond if my relative's health needs or behaviour changed?
This was an inspection of the care home only; the day care service was not regulated by the CQC and was not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 September 2016 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 Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 February 2011.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.