CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ancasta Grove
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clear improvements in fire safety and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with 13 people, two family members and eight staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely and had enough suitably skilled staff.
Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and communication needs. People were treated with kindness and respect, supported to stay independent and offered a range of activities and social events.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Fire safety work had been completed, new senior managers were in place and systems for checking quality had improved. A previous registration condition limiting the home to 31 ground-floor rooms was removed.
Fire safety
The home had completed building work identified in fire risk assessments. Inspectors also found clear procedures, checks and staff training.
“Works to the fabric of the building identified in fire risk assessments had been completed and quality assured.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills and saw staff supporting people calmly and professionally. Recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were sufficient staff with the right mix of skills to support people safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, choices, health conditions, communication needs and life histories. Staff used this information in day-to-day care.
“People's care plans were personalised and individual, setting out people's needs and choices and how they were to be met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were supported with kindness and compassion. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions.
“People were supported with kindness and compassion, and treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found clearer leadership and stronger quality monitoring than at the previous inspection. The home had a new senior management team.
“The provider could show clear improvements in how the service was managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you keeping the fire safety improvements in place and checking them now?
- 02How many agency staff are currently working here, and has the use of agency staff changed as described in the report?
- 03How will you make sure my relative's care plan continues to reflect their health, communication, dietary and personal preferences?
- 04What activities and social opportunities would be suitable for my relative's interests and abilities?
- 05How would you respond if my relative's health changed and they needed advice from specialist healthcare services?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous inspection was focused and did not cover all five areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 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, May 2022
Safe and well-led ratings Requires Improvement; inspectors found fire safety and leadership shortfalls, with upper floors restricted until shown to be safe.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. It was unannounced and took place on 22, 29 and 30 December 2021. Inspectors spoke with people and staff, and reviewed care, risk, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient and staff were caring. Inspectors also found detailed individual risk assessments, infection control measures and learning from accidents and incidents.
There were important safety concerns about unfinished fire safety actions, including in areas that were not occupied. The home was using only ground-floor rooms and had enough staff to manage an evacuation. The provider was required not to use the first and second floors until they were shown to be safe.
The overall service was inspected but not rated because this was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only. The provider had no registered manager at the time, although interim leaders had started to make improvements.
Medicines
Inspectors found that staff were checked as competent and medicines records were complete and up to date.
“Staff were assessed to ensure they were competent in the safe administration of medicines.” from the report
Staffing
There were enough staff with the right skills, and people did not report having to wait long for help.
“People told us there were always staff available if they needed them, and they did not have to wait long for attention.” from the report
Individual risk planning
Care plans included detailed assessments for risks such as choking, falls, nutrition and skin health. Staff knew how to manage people's individual risks.
“Risk documentation in people's care plans was thorough and detailed.” from the report
People's experience
People were very positive about the care and support, and staff described examples of improvements in people's health, wellbeing and mobility.
“People we spoke with were extremely positive about the care and support they received.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home investigated accidents and incidents and looked for patterns, with actions such as extra staff training where needed.
“The report identified learning and recommended actions to prevent future accidents and incidents, such as additional training for staff.” from the report
Fire safety actions
seriousThe provider had not completed or clearly monitored all actions from the fire risk assessment. This created a safety risk for areas of the building that were not occupied.
“The provider had not made sure risks identified in their fire risk assessment had been addressed completely and promptly.” from the report
Leadership gap
needs fixingThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. The home had experienced inconsistent leadership and was relying on interim support.
“At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager in place at Ancasta Grove.” from the report
Regulatory notifications
needs fixingSome incidents were not reported to CQC on time, or did not include all the required information.
“In some cases we received notifications which were not sent as soon as reasonably practical and which did not contain all the necessary information or a complete description of the event.” from the report
Staff support arrangements
minorAlthough staff said they felt supported, a regular programme of supervision and meetings had not yet been established.
“The provider had not yet established a regular programme of supervisions and meetings.” from the report
- 01What fire safety actions from the August 2021 risk assessment have now been completed, and can you show us the evidence?
- 02Are the first and second floors still restricted, and what must happen before they can be used?
- 03Who is currently responsible for managing the home while there is no registered manager?
- 04How are you making sure incidents and safeguarding concerns are reported to the CQC promptly and with complete information?
- 05How often will staff now receive supervision, team meetings and updated handovers?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed and no overall rating was given. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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.
Every inspection of Ancasta Grove
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 May 2021.
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.