CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Teignbridge House Care Home
Teignbridge House Care Home Limited
2 Torquay Road, Shaldon, Teignmouth, TQ14 0AX
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Requires Improvement and still in special measures; the well-led rating was Inadequate, with serious safety and management weaknesses.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 and 8 November 2023. Three inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They examined care records, staff files, medicines, complaints, incidents, accidents, health and safety records, and management checks.
Some improvements had been made since the last inspection. Staffing levels, infection control, fire safety, activities, complaints handling and the culture of the home had improved. People and relatives generally said staff were kind and people felt safe and well cared for.
However, important risks were still not managed reliably. Records for pressure care, bowel monitoring, weight, food and fluids were incomplete. Care plans contained errors, some staff lacked required training and supervision, and people's legal rights around consent were not always protected. Management checks had failed to find or fix these problems.
The overall rating improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. Safe, Effective and Responsive were Requires Improvement, while Well-led remained Inadequate. The home remains in special measures because it has had an Inadequate rating in a key area over two consecutive comprehensive inspections.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and responding when someone appeared overwhelmed.
“We observed staff being mindful of people's dignity.” from the report
Health professional links
Health professionals said staff shared information and acted on advice. People were supported to access healthcare services.
“I have full confidence that any health needs will be reported, and any plans I suggest will be actioned.” from the report
Staffing improvements
Staffing levels had increased during busy afternoon periods and rotas matched the home's dependency assessment. Inspectors saw staff helping people calmly and without rushing.
“We saw staff assisting people in an unhurried and calm manner.” from the report
Activities and family involvement
People could join group and individual activities, hobbies and outings. Families were supported to visit and take part in care.
“Various opportunities were available for people to interact socially and take part in group and individual activities and hobbies.” from the report
Health risks were not reliably monitored
seriousRecords for pressure care, bowel management, weight, food and fluids had significant gaps. This included risks affecting people with catheters and people needing support with nutrition.
“Risks were not always monitored or well managed.” from the report
Safeguarding concerns were missed
seriousStaff did not always recognise possible abuse or unexplained injuries, and required records and referrals were not always made.
“The provider had failed to ensure systems and processes to safeguard people were effectively operated.” from the report
Consent and restrictions were not handled lawfully
seriousMental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were missing or unsuitable for some people. Some restrictions were used without the required process.
“People's rights were not always protected.” from the report
Care plans contained errors
seriousSome care plans gave incorrect information about the help people needed and did not explain how to support emotional distress, anxiety or breathlessness. Reviews did not always record changes.
“Care plans did not always reflect people's needs and personal preferences.” from the report
Training and supervision were incomplete
seriousOnly four staff had completed dementia awareness training, some staff had large gaps in their training records and no one-to-one supervision had taken place.
“Staff did not always receive appropriate training and supervision.” from the report
Management checks did not drive improvement
seriousAudits failed to identify several important problems, and actions recorded as complete had not always been done. The provider's systems did not give managers reliable oversight of people's risks.
“Systems were not effective to ensure good governance of the service.” from the report
- 01How are you now recording and checking repositioning, skin checks, bowel care, weight, food and fluid intake for each person?
- 02What has been done to ensure every care plan is accurate, personalised and reviewed when people's needs change?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications being checked?
- 04How many staff have now completed dementia training, individual health-needs training and one-to-one supervision?
- 05Who is currently legally responsible for the home, and how are managers checking that audits lead to completed actions?
This was an unannounced inspection prompted by concerns about people's health needs and focused on the related risks; it did not examine the circumstances of the reported death, which was subject to a separate CQC investigation. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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 Teignbridge House Care Home Limited
6 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Teignbridge House Care Home Limited →
- July 2023Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2011.
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.