CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 70-72 Worting Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient and recruitment checks had been completed. Risks were assessed, the premises were clean and maintained, and staff knew how to report abuse.
- Effective?
- Good
- The home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and supported people to make decisions. Staff received training and supervision, and people's health, food and support needs were assessed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw respectful, natural and relaxed interactions. People were supported with privacy, dignity, independence, personal choices and relationships that mattered to them.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, current and developed with the people using the service. Activities were planned around individual interests and people received information in accessible formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Feedback about management was very positive. The home held meetings, gathered feedback and completed regular quality and safety checks.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful and person-centred care, with improvements made since three breaches in 2016.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 10 May 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, the registered manager, relatives and healthcare professionals. They also checked care plans, staff records, medicines records and safety records.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found that medicines, staffing, recruitment, risk management and safeguarding arrangements were safe. People were involved in their care, daily activities, meals and decisions about their lives.
Care plans were up to date and people had access to community activities, work, holidays and important relationships. The home was clean and well maintained. Staff were described as caring, well trained and supported, and management was viewed positively.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good. At the previous inspection in December 2016, there had been three breaches. Inspectors found the required improvements had been made.
Safe medicines
Medicines records were complete, stock checks matched the records and staff competence was checked before they administered medicines.
“Medicines administration records (MAR) were completed in full with no unexplained gaps.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped plan their care, meals and daily activities. They were supported to use local services, work, travel and maintain relationships.
“Choice was promoted and supported in every aspect of daily life, people chose when to get up, what to do with their day, what to eat, what to drink, who to talk to and how they would express themselves.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's individual needs and were reviewed regularly. People were involved in writing or signing their plans where possible.
“People had care and support plans that were comprehensive and detailed.” from the report
Caring staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with respect and supporting their privacy, dignity and independence.
“The interactions we observed with people and staff were respectful, natural and relaxed.” from the report
Positive management
Staff, relatives and healthcare professionals gave positive feedback about the management. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality.
“Quality monitoring was in place and records demonstrated that quality and safety checks were being completed on a regular basis.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01The report is from 2018. What has changed in the home since this inspection?
- 02The home had applied for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations and was waiting for them to be processed. What is the current position for anyone who may need one?
- 03How are people currently involved in writing and reviewing their care plans?
- 04How are staffing hours adjusted when people's needs or activities change?
- 05How are people supported to keep working, using local services, taking holidays and maintaining family relationships?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home's premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 2018 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 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines, safety checks and capacity records needed fixing.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 29 and 30 December 2016. Inspectors spoke with five people living at the home, five relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed three care records, medicine records for all eight people, staff files, rotas, audits and other records.
People were supported by kind and respectful staff. Their care plans were person centred, and they were helped to take part in work, leisure activities and decisions about their lives. Relatives and professionals were positive about the care and the leadership.
However, medicines were not always stored, recorded or monitored safely. Environmental safety checks were not reliable, and mental capacity assessments were not always completed or recorded properly. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Good ratings for Caring and Responsive, and Requires Improvement ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, patience and respect. The atmosphere was positive, and staff knew people well.
“Our observations indicated that staff showed people kindness, patience and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care and support plans included people’s interests, routines, communication needs and personal history. People were involved in planning their care.
“People's care and support plans were person centred.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to use the community, work, take part in leisure activities and develop household skills.
“People were supported to take part in a range of work and leisure activities in line with their personal preferences.” from the report
Suitable staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found staffing levels adequate and saw that relevant checks had been completed before staff worked unsupervised.
“Staffing levels were adequate and recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff worked unsupervised.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicines were not securely stored. Records had gaps, guidance for some as-needed medicines was incomplete, and monitoring checks had not found the problems.
“Improvements were needed to help ensure people's medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Environmental safety checks
seriousHot water temperatures exceeded recommended safe limits, some legionella checks were not evidenced, cleaning and food temperature records had gaps, and window restrictors could be overridden.
“The provider had not ensured that the premises were at all times, safe for people to use.” from the report
Mental capacity records
seriousCapacity assessments were not always completed and recorded for complex and significant decisions. Inspectors were concerned this could put people at risk of decisions they did not understand.
“Staff had not completed and recorded robust mental capacity assessments.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home and provider carried out audits, but these had not identified the medicines and safety concerns found by inspectors.
“Audits and checks of the safety and quality of aspects of the service were not sufficiently robust.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine storage, medicine records, as-needed medicine guidance and temperature checks?
- 02How are hot water temperatures, legionella checks, window restrictors, cleaning and food temperatures now monitored?
- 03How do you complete and record mental capacity assessments for complex or significant decisions?
- 04How do your audits now identify and correct safety and medicines problems?
- 05How do you make sure staffing remains adequate when staff are absent or working long hours?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, including observations, discussions with people and relatives, and reviews of care, medicines, staffing and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 2017 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 70-72 Worting Road
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 January 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.