CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Alverstoke House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention arrangements, including PPE, testing, hygiene, visiting and outbreak management. They found that vaccination checks for visiting professionals were not always carried out correctly, although the provider took action afterwards.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found generally suitable infection controls, but checks on visitors' COVID-19 vaccination status were not always followed.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 17 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
The home had enough protective equipment, used it appropriately, supported visits, followed COVID-19 testing procedures and could support people to isolate safely. Inspectors were also assured about hygiene, social distancing, admissions, testing and managing outbreaks.
There was one shortfall. The home did not always check that visiting professionals were vaccinated or exempt, as required at the time. The provider took action after the inspection and was signposted to further resources.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Protective equipment
The home had enough PPE and staff used it appropriately during the inspection.
“The provider had adequate supplies of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) available and this was used appropriately during the inspection.” from the report
Visits and isolation
People could receive visitors in line with government guidance. The home could also support people to isolate while reducing the effect on their wellbeing.
“When people needed to isolate the service was able to accommodate this and minimise the impact on people's well-being.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Inspectors were assured that the home followed COVID-19 testing procedures and had arrangements to prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
“The correct procedures were in place and followed for COVID-19 testing.” from the report
Safe admissions
Although the home was not accepting new admissions at the time, inspectors found that arrangements were in place for safe admissions when they resumed.
“The service was not currently open to admissions. The appropriate measures were in place to facilitate safe admission when these occurred.” from the report
Vaccination checks
needs fixingThe home did not always check the COVID-19 vaccination status of visiting professionals, and some staff did not know that these checks were required. The provider took action after the inspection.
“The service was not always meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
- 01How do you now check the COVID-19 vaccination or exemption status of visiting professionals?
- 02What action did you take after the inspection to make sure staff understood the vaccination-check requirement?
- 03How do you carry out COVID-19 testing for residents and staff now?
- 04What arrangements are in place if a resident needs to isolate?
- 05How do you support visits while preventing infection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not rate the other areas of care or the service overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 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, September 2021
Rated Good overall and no longer in special measures; inspectors found safe, caring support but improvements were still needed in consent records.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 2 and 10 September 2021. Inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and medicines records, and checked the environment, infection control and management systems.
The home had improved significantly since its previous inadequate rating. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found safer medicines systems, suitable staffing, detailed care plans, regular health support and personalised activities.
The effective rating remained Requires Improvement. Records did not always show the required mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions. People and relatives also gave mixed views about the food, and some relatives were concerned about staffing levels at weekends.
The overall rating changed from Inadequate to Good. The home was no longer in breach of regulations and was taken out of special measures. The Caring question was not inspected during this focused visit, so its previous rating was used in the overall rating.
Safer medicines
New ordering, storage, disposal and checking systems had improved medicine safety. Records showed people received their medicines as prescribed.
“The provider used an electronic system for medicines management, including medicine administration records (MAR).” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff clear information about people's needs, preferences and risks. They were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis, so staff had detailed up to date guidance to provide support relating to people's specific needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could join group activities or receive one-to-one support. Staff helped people keep in touch with loved ones during COVID-19 restrictions.
“For people who were unable to take part in group activities the activities coordinators would visit them in their rooms and provide them with one to one interaction” from the report
Improved leadership
Management systems, audits and action plans had been introduced. Inspectors found a more organised and positive culture than at the previous inspection.
“Effective quality assurance systems had been developed and implemented.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingWhere people lacked capacity, the required capacity assessment and best-interest decision were not always both recorded. The manager agreed to address this.
“We found where people lacked the capacity to understand and consent to aspects of their care, a formal assessment under the MCA and subsequent best interest decision was not always completed as needed.” from the report
Food variety
minorPeople and relatives gave mixed views about the food. Some said it was good, while others wanted more choice and variety.
“There needs to be more food options. It is the same menu all the time” from the report
Weekend staffing concerns
needs fixingInspectors observed enough staff during the visit, but a few relatives felt staffing was not sufficient, particularly at weekends. The provider agreed to review this.
“a few relatives told us, they felt there were not enough staff, particularly at weekends.” from the report
As-required medicine records
minorSome records did not explain why as-required medicines had been given or what the outcome was. The manager agreed to improve these records.
“On review of records relating to 'as required' medicines we noted on some occasions these lacked detailed information about why the medicine had been given and the outcome.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every mental capacity assessment and best-interest decision is completed and recorded correctly?
- 02What changes have been made to the food menu since the mixed feedback about choice and variety?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels are sufficient at weekends?
- 04How do you record why as-required medicines were given and whether they had the intended effect?
- 05How are the new audits and action plans checked to make sure improvements continue?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; Caring was not inspected and its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 September 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 Alverstoke House Nursing Home
8 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Alverstoke House Nursing Home →
- September 2021GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Alverstoke House Nursing Home →
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2021Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 November 2010.
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.