CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Amberwood House
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable recruitment checks and effective systems for managing risks, incidents and infection control.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- People’s needs, choices, nutrition and healthcare were well supported. Staff received induction, supervision and training suited to their roles, including dementia and end of life care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and friendly. Inspectors observed respectful support that protected privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and regularly reviewed, with activities and end of life support available. However, some requested destinations had not yet been turned into planned actions.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Leadership was visible and open, and staff, people and relatives were involved. Quality checks were described as robust and were used to drive improvements, although one safeguarding notification had been missed.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found kind, safe and highly effective care, with a few records and follow-up actions to improve.
The inspection was unannounced on 25 October 2018 and continued on 26 October, when it was announced. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints, training and quality checks, and observed care and mealtimes.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Safe, caring and responsive were rated Good. Effective and well-led were rated Outstanding. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable recruitment checks and good protection from avoidable harm.
People were supported with food, drink, healthcare, activities and personal choices. Staff were described as kind and caring, and people’s dignity, privacy, independence, cultural needs and end of life wishes were respected. The home had strong leadership, useful links with the community and quality checks that led to improvements.
There were some smaller shortfalls. Spiritual needs were not always fully included in care plans, and people’s ideas for destinations had not yet led to actions. One safeguarding incident had not been notified to the CQC, although the home had investigated it and said it would improve its checking process.
Food and drink support
The home offered varied choices and extra options for people who needed more food or drink. Staff monitored nutritional needs closely and supported people with dignity at mealtimes.
“There was a strong emphasis on people eating and drinking well.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Training was matched to staff roles and individual learning needs. Staff could develop clinical skills and were supported with further training and career progression.
“Training was tailored to meet staff members' learning styles and to ensure staff were able to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff being patient, gentle and attentive. People’s privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices were respected.
“On both days of the inspection there was a calm and welcoming atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Strong leadership and improvement
The management encouraged feedback and worked with families, professionals and community organisations. Audits and meetings were used to identify and act on improvements.
“Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place and up to date.” from the report
Spiritual needs in care plans
needs fixingPeople’s spiritual needs were identified in assessments but were not always fully recorded in their care plans. The home updated the care plans during the inspection.
“However, we found that people's spiritual needs identified in their individual needs assessments were not always detailed in their care plans.” from the report
Activity requests not yet actioned
needs fixingPeople had suggested destinations through a questionnaire, but no actions had yet been set to make these trips happen. The home provided an action plan after the inspection.
“We found that people had recorded several different destinations however, no actions had been set to fulfil these.” from the report
Missed safeguarding notification
seriousThe home investigated and reported one safeguarding incident to the local authority, but did not send a notification to the CQC. Management said this would be reviewed to prevent a repeat.
“We found that one safeguarding incident had been investigated by the home and reported to the local authority however, a notification had not been sent to us.” from the report
- 01How are each person’s spiritual and cultural needs recorded in their current care plan?
- 02What happened to the destinations people requested, and how are activity suggestions now followed up?
- 03What checks are in place to make sure safeguarding incidents are notified to the CQC when required?
- 04How are staffing levels calculated when people’s needs change or staff are absent?
- 05How are food and drink needs monitored for people at risk of losing weight or needing a fortified diet?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; the previous overall rating was Good and this inspection found it had improved to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 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 Amberwood House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- June 2019Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
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.