CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Adamscourt Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and stronger management after previous concerns about risk assessments and quality checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 23 February 2021. The inspection team spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found safer risk management, trained staff, suitable staffing levels, safer medicines practice and infection control measures in line with guidance.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement. The provider had made the improvements required after the earlier inspection, and was no longer in breach of Regulations 12 and 17.
This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Safer medicines
Medicines were administered and recorded by trained staff whose competence was checked regularly. Guidance was also in place for medicines given only when needed.
“People had their medicines administered and recorded in line with best practice by trained staff who regularly had their competencies checked.” from the report
Risk management
Risks such as falls, poor nutrition, dehydration and swallowing difficulties were assessed and reviewed. Staff used equipment, referrals and changes to care to reduce risks.
“Risks to people were assessed, monitored and regularly reviewed.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's care and social needs. Recruitment checks included references and criminal record checks.
“People were supported by enough staff to ensure their care and social needs were met.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had introduced stronger auditing tools and management oversight. Staff in specialist roles also helped drive improvements.
“Auditing processes had been reviewed and changes included introducing more robust auditing tools more aligned with regulation” from the report
Supportive culture
Staff said they felt appreciated and able to share ideas. Inspectors found that families and staff had several ways to stay involved during COVID-19 restrictions.
“Staff told us they felt appreciated and involved in developing the service.” from the report
Limited family meetings
minorFace-to-face family meetings were not taking place because of COVID-19 restrictions. The home offered telephone and video calls, written reviews and newsletters instead.
“Meetings with families had not been able to take place due to covid-19 restrictions.” from the report
- 01How are changes in a person's mobility, falls risk, nutrition or swallowing needs assessed and reviewed now?
- 02How often are staff checked as competent to administer medicines, including medicines prescribed when needed?
- 03What audits are currently carried out, and how are actions from those audits followed up?
- 04How can families stay involved and receive updates if face-to-face meetings are not available?
- 05What changes have been made since this February 2021 inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 2021 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, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but important gaps in safety and management systems.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 and 22 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were described as receiving kind, personalised care. Staff supported people with food, healthcare, activities, communication and daily choices.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found risks from uncovered radiators and unrestricted windows. Medicines records were sometimes unclear, and quality checks had not found or fixed some problems.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. The provider was asked for an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress and return for another inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed respectful interactions and support for people's choices, dignity and independence.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring and they were happy living at the home.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and life histories. Staff had access to information to guide their care.
“Plans were personalised and relevant to the person. This meant people were receiving the care that was important to them and met their individual needs.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had a varied diet and could choose alternatives. Records showed referrals to health professionals and action on their advice.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in varied activities, including outings and visits. The home also supported contact with relatives and links with community groups.
“We observed different activities throughout the inspection and these were well attended.” from the report
Risks in the building
seriousUncovered radiators created a scalding risk. Two upstairs windows opened fully without restrictors. The report says these issues were dealt with after the inspection.
“Radiators within the home were not covered and therefore people were exposed to hot surfaces and the risk of scalding.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousSome medicines administration records were unclear or illegible. Guidance for medicines taken only occasionally was also missing until it was completed during the inspection.
“Some medicine administration records (MAR) were unclear, contained hand written instructions and changes which were illegible.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits had not found several risks, or had not ensured that actions were completed. Some records of audits did not include actions, outcomes or management sign-off.
“Quality assurance systems did not always operate effectively.” from the report
Delayed environmental action
needs fixingSeven wardrobes still needed securing to walls after this had been listed as urgent for two months.
“seven wardrobes required securing to walls, this had been an urgent action for two consecutive months.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make medicines administration records clear, accurate and easy for staff to follow?
- 02How are medicines taken only occasionally now guided and recorded?
- 03Have all environmental risks, including wardrobes, radiators and windows, been fixed and independently checked?
- 04How often are safety and quality audits now reviewed, and who signs off the actions?
- 05What evidence can you show that the improvements since this inspection have been sustained?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the home and the care provided both looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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.
Every inspection of Adamscourt Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Adamscourt Residential Care Home →
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Adamscourt Residential Care Home →
- May 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2015.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.