CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Applecroft Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and visiting arrangements during a COVID-19 outbreak.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 February 2022. It was a targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. This included safe visiting arrangements, testing, isolation plans, personal protective equipment, cleaning and infection control training.
Normal visiting had been suspended because of a COVID-19 outbreak at the time. Essential care givers and relatives of people receiving end-of-life care were welcomed, in line with government guidance.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report therefore does not give a rated judgement about the overall service or a full assessment of all areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including COVID-19 outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Personal protective equipment
PPE stocks were maintained, and staff used and disposed of PPE correctly.
“Stocks of the right standard of personal protective equipment (PPE) were well maintained and staff used and disposed of it correctly.” from the report
Clean environment
The home had a clear cleaning schedule and inspectors found the building clean and without unpleasant odours.
“There was a clear and robust cleaning schedule in place. The building was clean and odour free.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The visiting policy followed government guidance. Essential care givers and relatives of people receiving end-of-life care were welcomed during the outbreak.
“The provider's visiting policy followed current government guidance.” from the report
Individual risk assessments
People and staff had individual risk assessments so that support could be tailored to their needs.
“People and staff members had an individual risk assessment so that care and support could be tailored to everyone's individual requirement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How does visiting work now, and are there any restrictions or booking arrangements?
- 02What happened after the COVID-19 outbreak mentioned in the report, and are there any current infection-control measures?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 04How often are staff trained and tested in infection prevention and control?
- 05How are individual risk assessments reviewed when a resident's needs change?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor hygiene and accommodation issues identified.
Inspectors visited on 3 and 4 January 2019. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, training and management systems.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care planning, kind treatment and good support for people's health, choices and activities.
There were some minor hygiene shortfalls. Some small kitchens were poorly maintained and difficult to keep clean, and bolts had been crudely fitted to some bedroom doors. Plans were in place to refurbish the kitchens and remove the bolts, and the home later provided evidence that action had been taken.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous comprehensive inspection in February and March 2016. Inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff who administered medicines had been trained and assessed as competent.
“Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of in line with national guidance.” from the report
Enough staff
There were enough nurses and care staff on duty during both inspection days. Records also showed consistent staffing during the previous two weeks.
“On both days of our inspection there were enough nurses and care staff on duty to enable people to promptly receive all the care they needed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as friendly, kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff supporting people's wellbeing, privacy and personal choices.
“Another person remarked, "Staff are very friendly, very kind and very caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs and wishes and were reviewed regularly. People were supported with hobbies, interests and individual communication needs.
“The care plans had been regularly reviewed to make sure that they accurately reflected people's changing needs and wishes.” from the report
Open management
The home had systems for checking quality, handling complaints and learning from accidents. People, relatives and staff were invited to suggest improvements.
“There was a registered manager in post who had promoted an open and inclusive culture in the service.” from the report
Minor hygiene shortfalls
minorInspectors found two minor problems with the standard of hygiene. The manager said these would be addressed immediately.
“We identified to the registered manager two minor shortfalls in the standard of hygiene achieved in the service.” from the report
Some accommodation needed improvement
needs fixingSome small kitchens were poorly maintained and difficult to keep clean. Bolts had also been crudely fitted to some bedroom doors, although the home planned refurbishment and later confirmed the bolts had been removed.
“These kitchens had not been well maintained, looked unsightly and were difficult to keep clean.” from the report
- 01Have all the small kitchens now been refurbished, and how are they being kept clean?
- 02Have all the crudely fitted bedroom-door bolts been removed?
- 03What action was taken to address the two minor hygiene shortfalls identified by inspectors?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or wishes change?
- 05How can relatives be involved in decisions about healthcare and end-of-life care?
This inspection covered all five CQC questions and the premises and care provided; the report used a shorter format because the overall Good rating had not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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 Applecroft Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 May 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.