CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bognor Regis
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe recruitment, enough staff and safe medicines management.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's outcomes were consistently good. Staff received induction, shadowing and refreshed training, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described and observed as kind, patient and attentive. People were involved in decisions, treated with dignity and encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs and communication. The home offered activities, responded to concerns and recorded end-of-life preferences.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptional leadership, motivated staff, strong relationships with professionals and robust checks that helped drive improvements.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding leadership; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care in a happy home.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 February 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and a meal, and checked care plans, medicines, staff recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, care was personalised and activities were available.
The home was rated Outstanding for Well-led. Inspectors found strong leadership, motivated staff, effective checks on quality and a willingness to try new ways to improve people's wellbeing.
The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 25 August 2016. CQC said it would continue to monitor the service and plan future inspections based on the rating.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with staff responding promptly to requests. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet people's needs on the day of our inspection and records showed these staffing levels were routinely achieved.” from the report
Well-trained staff
New staff shadowed experienced carers for a month before working independently. Training and supervision were refreshed regularly.
“All new staff completed a month of shadow shifts and received nationally recognised induction training before they provided support independently.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well and took time to talk with them. People were supported with dignity, choice and independence.
“Managers and staff knew people well and were passionately committed to meeting people's needs.” from the report
Strong leadership
The home had clear leadership, effective quality checks and a culture that welcomed new ideas. Staff and professionals spoke highly of how it was run.
“There were robust and effective auditing systems in place designed to drive improvements in the service's performance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current afternoon staffing levels, and how much one-to-one time can people usually expect?
- 02How will you assess and support my relative's specific communication needs and personal preferences?
- 03Which activities would suit my relative, and how would you support them to join in if they were initially reluctant?
- 04How would you involve our family and health professionals if my relative's needs changed?
- 05How would you record and follow my relative's wishes about end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five quality areas, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 May 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some medicine guidance and staff record issues addressed after the visit.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 and 30 August 2016. One inspector and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with residents, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staff files, rotas, surveys, audits and meeting notes.
The home supported up to 19 older people, with 18 living there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines administration, suitable risk assessments and trained staff. People were treated with kindness and respect, involved in their care, offered choices about food and activities, and supported to contact healthcare professionals.
The home received a Good rating overall and Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found strong leadership and systems for checking quality. They also noted two staff files missing identification documents and limited guidance for some 'as required' medicines. The manager said these points had been dealt with after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke highly of the staff. Inspectors observed staff being patient, respectful and encouraging people to remain independent.
“During the inspection we observed staff treating residents very respectfully, getting down to their level to communicate with them, not rushing them, and encouraging independence.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. The home also used existing staff and added support when people's needs changed.
“There was flexibility in the staff numbers to respond to changes in people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, interests, preferences and support needs. Staff knew how individuals liked to be supported.
“The care plans were personalised and demonstrated that staff had taken time to get to know people and understand their wishes.” from the report
Good leadership and checking
The manager and deputy were hands-on and approachable. Audits, feedback and action plans were used to monitor the quality of care.
“We found that the systems in place were effective in monitoring the quality of service that people received, in sustaining it and working towards further improvement.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could join group activities or pursue individual interests. They were offered choices about meals and could suggest changes to the service.
“In addition to group activities, people were supported to pursue individual interests.” from the report
Staff identification records
minorTwo staff files did not contain proof of identification. The manager said the files were audited and the missing documents were added after the inspection.
“We noted that two staff files did not contain proof of identification.” from the report
Guidance for as-required medicines
needs fixingSome records only said 'as directed', without explaining clearly when the medicine should be given. The manager later sent an updated policy and examples of individual protocols.
“At the time of our inspection, the provider's policy did not include guidance on how to manage PRN medicines.” from the report
Weekend activities
minorThere were no planned weekend activities during the inspection. The manager said this had been raised by residents and the activity programme was being reviewed.
“there were no planned weekend activities at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01How are 'as required' medicines now recorded, including when they should be given, the maximum dose and what staff should do if symptoms continue?
- 02How do you check that every staff file contains proof of identification before the person starts work?
- 03What weekend activities are now available, and how are residents' individual interests included?
- 04How will you tell families if a person's needs or care plan changes?
- 05How can residents and relatives give feedback or make a complaint, and how will the response be recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 2016 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 Bognor Regis
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014Inspected but not rated
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.