CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Essex Care Consortium
Colchester
Maldon Road, Birch, Colchester, CO2 0NU
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
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.
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 day” from 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
Safeguarding was not acted on
seriousConcerns 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 required” from the report
Choking risks
seriousGuidance 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 staff” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingRecords 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
seriousAudits 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 fixingVideo 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
- 01What evidence can you show that all safeguarding concerns are now reported promptly to the local authority, CQC and the police when required?
- 02How are you checking that every staff member follows each person's current speech and language therapy guidance to prevent choking?
- 03How do you check that medicines records, controlled drug registers, pain patch instructions and storage temperatures are complete and accurate?
- 04When was each person's Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan last reviewed, and does it reflect their current mobility and medicine-related fire risks?
- 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.
Every inspection of Colchester
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- February 2024Inadequatecurrent ratingSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- 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.
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.
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.