CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Argyles Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including testing, protective equipment, visiting, admissions, social distancing, cleaning and outbreak control.
- 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control during a coronavirus outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 10 February 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control because the home had experienced a coronavirus outbreak. The inspection was announced.
Inspectors found that the outbreak had been controlled effectively. They were assured that the home managed visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, shielding, social distancing, admissions, cleaning and hygiene safely.
The home had created a visiting pod, increased support for people at risk of loneliness, and gave staff extra support. The report did not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four areas of care.
Outbreak control
Inspectors found that the outbreak had been controlled effectively, with support from specialist staff and external health and social care professionals.
“The outbreak was effectively controlled by the service.” from the report
Testing
Testing had been increased for people living in the home, staff and essential visitors. This included rapid testing and laboratory testing.
“The service had increased testing for people, staff and essential visitors.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had converted a bedroom into a visiting pod linked to the outside. It had already allowed safe visits under government guidance, although it was not in use during the inspection.
“The service had already designed and constructed a specialised visiting pod by converting a bedroom which connected with the outside of the building.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
People at risk of loneliness or isolation received extra contact with staff and, where possible, with family and friends. Healthcare professionals were contacted when isolation affected emotional or psychological wellbeing.
“People who were at risk of experiencing loneliness or social isolation had additional interaction with staff and where possible remotely with their family and friends.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, including testing and the use of protective equipment?
- 02Is the visiting pod currently available, and what visiting arrangements are being used now?
- 03How do you support residents who may feel lonely or isolated?
- 04How are staff supported to prevent fatigue and maintain a good work-life balance?
- 05What was the outcome of the most recent inspection or review after this focused inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 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, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection but some records still needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well, supported their independence and involved them in decisions about their care.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Earlier problems with risk assessments, consent records, personalised care and management oversight had been addressed. The home was no longer in breach of regulations at this inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, warmth and respect. Relatives and professionals also described strong caring relationships.
“People were treated with compassion, care and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, interests, likes and dislikes. Staff supported choice and independence in everyday decisions.
“People's care plans were person centred and individualised.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines records were accurate and staff had regular training and competency checks. Medicines were stored and administered safely.
“Medicines Administration Records (MARs) demonstrated that people had received their medicines as prescribed and in line with their medicine plans.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked promptly with doctors, therapists, specialist nurses and other professionals when people's health needs changed.
“The service worked closely in partnership with the GPs practice, dietitians, SALT, hospital specialist teams and specialist nurses” from the report
Some risk records needed updating
needs fixingA few files still contained paperwork suggesting that risks remained when they had been reduced or no longer applied. The manager said all relevant documentation was being reviewed.
“in a few files a couple of specific risks that had mitigated retained paperwork, as though risks were still relevant.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment information
needs fixingMost recruitment checks were present, but some staff files had incomplete information. The provider introduced an audit tool to check existing and future files.
“However, some files had incomplete information.” from the report
Some care documents were not amended promptly
needs fixingSome care documents did not reflect improvements in people's health needs. Evidence sent after the inspection showed that the necessary changes had been made.
“some individual care documents had not been amended to address people's changed health needs” from the report
Complaint records were not fully current
minorThe complaints folder included older complaints that were still recorded at home level, even though the provider was investigating them. The manager agreed to add an explanatory note.
“the records maintained at home level were not accurate or up to date.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure risk assessments and care plans are updated promptly when a person's needs change?
- 02Have all staff recruitment files been checked using the new audit tool, and are all required checks complete before new staff start?
- 03How are complaints investigated when they are handled by the wider provider, and how can families see the outcome?
- 04How do you make sure people who may lack capacity are involved in decisions and that best-interest records remain up to date?
- 05The report says the manager had applied for CQC registration. What is the current position on that application?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions with people and staff, and reviews of care, medicines, recruitment and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 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 Argyles Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
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 25 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
42 live-in carers within about an hour of West Berkshire
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. 36 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“Titus has compassion, patience, a great sense of humour and a very professional attitude.”
“Barbara treated my mother-in-law with enormous love and compassion and provided an environment where she could feel safe and seen”
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.