Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Essex Care Consortium

Colchester

Maldon Road, Birch, Colchester, CO2 0NU

Requires improvementpublished 19 February 2025, 18 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious safety and leadership failures, although action was taken on choking risks after the visit.

This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 21 and 22 November 2023. Inspectors reviewed information, spoke with people, managers and five care workers, observed care, and checked records including care plans, medicines, incidents and staff files.

The home was rated Inadequate overall, with Safe and Well-led also rated Inadequate. Inspectors found that safeguarding concerns were not always reported, risks linked to choking and fire evacuation were not properly managed, and medicines records were incomplete. The home also did not have effective systems to monitor safety, investigate incidents and drive improvement.

Inspectors saw some positive care. People had enough staff support, staff were kind, and people were described as happy and engaged. After the inspection, the home said it had updated evacuation plans, completed dysphagia training for all staff, checked staff competence and reviewed choking-related care records. These actions did not change the published Inadequate rating.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and engaging support

    Inspectors saw staff treating people kindly. People appeared comfortable, happy, engaged and stimulated.

    Staff were kind, and caring and as a result we saw people were at ease, happy, engaged and stimulated.from the report
  • Enough staff

    The home had enough staff to meet people's needs, including extra one-to-one support for anxiety, day care and community activities.

    The service had enough staff on duty to meet people's needs, including additional 1-1 hours to support people to manage anxieties and have a good dayfrom the report
  • Recruitment checks

    Inspectors found recruitment systems and required checks were in place to help ensure staff were suitable to work at the home.

    The service had effective recruitment systems in place which ensured the right staff were recruited.from the report
  • Clean and personalised surroundings

    The home and shared facilities were clean and hygienic. People's rooms were personalised and described as modern and homely.

    People's accommodation was personalised to them, clean, modern, and homely.from the report
  • Positive feedback

    People's representatives gave generally positive feedback about the care and their relationships with staff.

    They reflected relatives were generally happy with the care their [family member] received and had good relationship with staff.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Safeguarding was not acted on

    serious

    Concerns about unsafe restraint and moving and handling were not referred to the local authority or reported to CQC as required. This meant lessons were not learned promptly.

    However, no safeguarding referrals had been made to the local authority, and CQC had not been notified as requiredfrom the report
  • Choking risks

    serious

    Guidance for people at risk of choking was inconsistent, and only three staff had the relevant food and drink support training at the time of inspection. A previous choking incident had not been fully reviewed.

    Information in people's care plans, key work folders and located in kitchens was inconsistent and did not provide clear guidance for stafffrom the report
  • Medicines records

    needs fixing

    Records for controlled medicines were incomplete. There were also gaps in guidance for a pain patch and morphine, and temperature checks for an overflow medicines cupboard were not routinely completed.

    Improvements were needed to ensure records contained accurate information about people's medicines to ensure these were administered correctly and accounted for.from the report
  • Weak oversight

    serious

    Audits did not identify safeguarding, choking, medicines or evacuation risks. There was no overarching improvement plan and incident systems were not being used effectively.

    The provider did not have robust and effective systems in place to assess, monitor and drive improvement in the quality and safety of the service.from the report
  • Privacy and legal authorisation

    needs fixing

    Video monitors used to detect seizures in private rooms were not covered properly by the relevant deprivation of liberty assessments. The provider also lacked robust policies for CCTV and recording equipment.

    these people's DoLS assessments had not included, or granted the use of video monitors in people's private rooms to deprive them of their human right to liberty and privacy.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What evidence can you show that all safeguarding concerns are now reported promptly to the local authority, CQC and the police when required?
  2. 02How are you checking that every staff member follows each person's current speech and language therapy guidance to prevent choking?
  3. 03How do you check that medicines records, controlled drug registers, pain patch instructions and storage temperatures are complete and accurate?
  4. 04When was each person's Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan last reviewed, and does it reflect their current mobility and medicine-related fire risks?
  5. 05What formal improvement plan is now in place, and how will you show that incidents, audits and safeguarding concerns are being reviewed for themes and lessons?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key question ratings were not inspected and the previous ratings were used to calculate the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 2024 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Colchester

4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.

  1. February 2024Inadequatecurrent rating
    Safe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate

    Read what inspectors found at Colchester

  2. February 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. January 2020Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2017Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2017Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. March 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. April 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. December 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 2010.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Essex Care Consortium Limited

2 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Marks Tey

Colchester, CO6
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 months agocare home

Plume Avenue

Colchester, CO3
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 6 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Colchester

Marks Tey

Colchester, CO6 · 4.3 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 3 months agocare home