CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Apple House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home prevented and managed infection risks. This included visitor checks, testing, protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and up-to-date infection control policies.
- Effective?
- Good
- 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and support for people's wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 31 March 2021. It looked at how well the home prevented and controlled infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found robust infection control policies. The home was clean, had enough protective equipment, followed testing and social distancing guidance, and checked that staff used protective equipment correctly.
The home also supported people with testing and vaccination, while considering consent and individual abilities. Staff worked with people, relatives and health professionals to support mental wellbeing. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Strong infection controls
The home had current infection control procedures and checks for visitors, including health questions, temperature checks and rapid COVID-19 testing.
“People, staff and visitors were protected from risks of infection by robust and up to date policies and procedures.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home visibly clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules covered frequently touched areas and audits were used to check standards.
“The home was visibly clean and hygienic. Staff used cleaning products recommended by the local authority.” from the report
Safe use of protective equipment
The home had a good supply of protective equipment. Staff received training, wore it correctly and had competency checks.
“Staff had received external training in how to put on and take off PPE and posters were available in the home as a reminder.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
The home worked with people, relatives and health professionals to support mental wellbeing during the pandemic. It also offered extra support where infection risks were identified.
“The home recognised the importance of supporting people's mental wellbeing and had worked creatively with people, their relatives and relevant health care professionals to maintain this.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the infection prevention and control arrangements described in the report been maintained since the inspection?
- 02How are visitors currently checked and tested when they come to the home?
- 03How do you check that staff continue to use protective equipment correctly?
- 04How are cleaning schedules and audits carried out now, especially for frequently touched surfaces?
- 05How do you support people's mental wellbeing and involve relatives and health professionals when needs change?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 April 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, June 2018
Apple House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only minor issues addressed during the inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over 27 February and 1 March 2018. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, directors and health and social care professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, rotas, training records and quality checks.
Inspectors found that people were safe and received a high standard of care. Staff knew people's needs and preferences well. People were involved in their care plans, daily choices, activities, meals and decisions about taking reasonable risks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found the service met the required standards in each area at the time of the inspection. A radiator in one bedroom was not covered on the first day, but this was arranged during the inspection.
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's health, social, spiritual and emotional needs. People helped write their plans and were supported to follow their own routines and goals.
“People' received highly personalised, supportive care that had allowed people with complex needs to lead full and active lives.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices and take reasonable risks. Inspectors saw examples of people staying active in the community and continuing activities that mattered to them.
“People were supported to exercise choice and empowered to take calculated risks and have control over their lives.” from the report
Kind and consistent staff
The staff team was stable and knew people well. Inspectors found positive relationships, good morale and compassionate care.
“There was a strong cohesive team and continuity of staff with a very low sickness level, which had led to the development of trust between people and staff.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored securely, records were completed and staff had training and competency checks. Guidance was available for medicines given when needed.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. MAR sheets were initialled by staff to demonstrate they had given medicines as prescribed, with any gaps accounted for.” from the report
Open leadership
Inspectors found that people and staff could share views about the running of the home. Audits covered areas including medicines, care planning, accidents and infection control.
“There were well-developed quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered and the running of the home.” from the report
Bedroom radiator needed covering
minorOne radiator was not covered at the start of the inspection, creating a possible burn or scald risk. The manager arranged for it to be covered by the second day.
“The radiator in one person's room was not covered and by the second day of the inspection the registered manager had arranged with their maintenance staff for this to be covered.” from the report
- 01Have there been any changes to the staff team since this inspection, and how is staffing planned when people's needs change?
- 02How are medicines, including medicines given when needed, checked and reviewed now?
- 03How are people involved in updating their care plans and choosing their activities and routines?
- 04How do you support people to take reasonable risks while keeping them safe?
- 05What quality audits and complaint checks are carried out now, and how are the results shared with people and relatives?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the premises and care provided and assessed all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 2018 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 Apple House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 June 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
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.