CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Agincourt Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed and monitored, infection control was effective, and medicines were safely managed overall, although one transcription error was found and corrected.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and oral care. Care plans reflected their needs, staff had appropriate training, and mental capacity and best-interest processes were generally followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind, considerate and cheerful. People were treated with dignity, supported to remain independent and offered choices about their daily lives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected as part of this focused inspection, so the report does not give a new rating for it.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and senior staff were approachable, and audits and monitoring were being used to improve care. Staff described a supportive team and said they could share their views.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Agincourt Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and clear improvements, although staff were sometimes too busy to spend time with people.
Inspectors visited without notice on 10 and 18 May 2022. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, the registered manager, relatives and a health professional. They also observed care and checked records, including care plans, medicines, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by staff who knew them well, treated with dignity and offered choices. Risks, medicines, infection control, care planning and staff training were generally managed well.
This was a focused inspection. It checked Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led, mainly because these areas had problems at the previous inspection. The home had improved from Requires Improvement and was no longer in breach of regulations 10 and 17. Responsive was not inspected in this report.
Kind and respectful care
People were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect.
“People were supported by staff who were kind, considerate and cheerful.” from the report
Safe care and risk management
Staff understood people's risks and knew how to reduce them. The home also had effective infection prevention arrangements.
“The risks people faced to their health and well-being were assessed.” from the report
Good communication
Relatives and health professionals gave positive feedback about communication with the home. Staff also felt able to speak with managers.
“Feedback from relatives was very positive about communication with the service and the care their loved one's received.” from the report
Improved leadership and oversight
The home had acted on problems found at the previous inspection. Its monitoring systems were being used to identify and address shortfalls.
“The systems in place to monitor standards and address shortfalls were being operated effectively and led to improvements in the quality and safety of the care people received.” from the report
Staff sometimes too busy
needs fixingThere were enough staff overall, but inspectors saw times when staff were busy and could not spend time with people who wanted their help. The manager said staffing arrangements were being kept under review.
“People were supported by sufficient staff although there were times they were busy and unable to spend time with people who were seeking their input.” from the report
One medicines recording error
needs fixingInspectors found an error when one person's medicine was copied into the records. It involved an as-required medicine that had not been needed, and the omission was corrected immediately.
“An error had been made when transcribing one person's medicines.” from the report
Building improvements still underway
minorRedecoration, furniture replacement and changes to the building were ongoing. The layout created challenges because communal areas were small, and plans for a dementia activity area had been delayed during the pandemic.
“A rolling redecoration program remained underway and the staff team continued to support people to make the best use of a building layout that presents some challenges due to the size of available communal areas.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people receive enough staff time when the home is busy?
- 02What checks are now in place to prevent medicines being copied incorrectly into records?
- 03How will you involve people's legal representatives in decisions about care and treatment?
- 04What improvements to the building and communal areas are still planned, and when are they expected to be completed?
- 05How do you support people living with dementia to take part in activities while the activity area is still being developed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; Responsive was not inspected and the report does not give a new rating for it. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 June 2022 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, July 2021
Agincourt Care Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and improved care, but ongoing problems with dignity, infection control and management checks.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 12 and 17 May 2021. Two inspectors spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, training and quality checks.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. Responsive was rated Good. The home had improved since the previous inspection, especially in risk management, care planning and communication, but some improvements were not consistent.
Inspectors found that people’s risks were understood, staffing levels were adequate and medicines were managed safely. However, infection control practices were not always followed, some people were not always treated with dignity, and records and management checks did not always identify or correct problems.
The home was still in breach of regulations about dignity and respect and good governance. CQC said it would monitor the home, discuss the required changes with the provider and return under its re-inspection programme.
Risk management
People’s risks were assessed and monitored. Staff had access to up-to-date care plans and risk information.
“The risks people faced were assessed and staff understood the care and support they needed to reduce these risks.” from the report
Staffing levels
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Recruitment systems for new staff were safe.
“There were adequate numbers of staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people’s needs, communication styles, likes and preferences. Staff had access to current information through handheld devices.
“People's care needs were described in their care plans and these plans were reviewed regularly.” from the report
Family communication
The home helped people keep in touch with relatives during the pandemic through phone calls, cards, social media updates and newsletters.
“Staff had helped people send cards, make phone calls and shared updates with families through social media.” from the report
Supportive staff culture
Staff said they felt supported by the management team and worked well together during a difficult year.
“Staff felt part of a solid team and they described the management team as both approachable and supportive.” from the report
Dignity and privacy
seriousPeople were not always treated with dignity and respect. Inspectors found delayed bathroom support, disrespectful language and a toilet door that did not provide reliable privacy.
“People were not always treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingStaff did not always change PPE or follow hand hygiene guidance. Laundry arrangements and shared equipment also created a risk of cross infection.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Management checks
seriousThe home had given staff guidance, but checks did not show that good practice had become consistent. Problems with infection control, dignity, oral care and mealtimes were not identified quickly enough.
“Failures of oversight had resulted in practice issues not being addressed.” from the report
Meaningful activity
minorSome people spent sustained periods without purposeful activity. Records did not show clearly whether people who were isolated in their rooms received regular social interaction.
“Some people spent time sat passively in communal areas without efforts to engage them.” from the report
Choice at mealtimes
needs fixingPeople did not always receive a choice of drink or food. Staff deployment problems also meant one person was left while staff helped others.
“For example, people did not receive a choice of drink with their lunch.” from the report
- 01What checks are now being made to ensure staff consistently protect people’s privacy and use respectful language?
- 02How are hand hygiene, PPE, shared equipment and laundry practices monitored since the inspection?
- 03How do you make sure people receive regular meaningful activity and social contact, including those who spend time in their rooms?
- 04How are food and drink choices offered at every mealtime, and how is enough staff cover arranged for people who need help eating?
- 05What action has been completed to meet the breaches of Regulation 10 and Regulation 17?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with infection prevention and control also examined under Safe; the previous overall rating was Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 July 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.
Every inspection of Agincourt Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 April 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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.