CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Basingfield Court Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, infection control and most safety checks were managed effectively, although some water temperature readings still needed investigation and recruitment checks had not all been complete.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive leadership, regular monitoring and staff involvement. Some family communication was difficult, and staff supervisions and resident meetings were not always regular.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Basingfield Court Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, but identified some recruitment, communication and follow-up issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 April and 5 May 2022. One inspector and one Expert by Experience spoke with four people, nine relatives and four staff. They also reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People and relatives said people felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable infection control and effective safety checks. Some recruitment checks were incomplete, but the home corrected its recruitment policy during the inspection.
The home was also rated Good for being well-led. Inspectors found supportive management, regular audits and staff involvement. However, some relatives found communication and telephone contact difficult, and some staff supervisions and resident meetings were not happening as regularly as planned.
This report only inspected Safe and Well-led. The other three ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection, when the home was rated Good overall in a report published on 3 May 2019.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse or poor care.
“People told us they were happy and safe living at Basingfield Court Residential Home.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors observed medicines being given safely. Records were complete and staff had suitable training and competency checks.
“Medicines records were complete and up to date.” from the report
Infection control
The home had infection control procedures in place, including measures for visitors, testing, protective equipment and possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff said they felt supported, and the manager used audits and incident reviews to monitor and improve care.
“The registered manager worked closely with people and staff to create a friendly, open and comfortable atmosphere in the home.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingRecruitment files did not contain all the required safe checks at the time of inspection. The provider changed its policy during the inspection to include checks on previous relevant employment.
“Recruitment files did not have all the safe recruitment checks at the time of inspection but the provider took immediate action to rectify this.” from the report
Water safety follow-up
needs fixingSome low water temperature readings still needed investigation as part of legionella risk management. The manager said these would be rechecked and followed up.
“However some temperature checks with low readings still needed to be investigated.” from the report
Family communication
minorSome relatives said communication could be better and that it was difficult to contact the home by telephone.
“Some relatives said that communication could be better and it was difficult to get hold of the service on the telephone.” from the report
Staff supervision
minorSupervisions were not always taking place regularly for all staff. The manager said missed supervisions would be arranged after inspectors raised this.
“Although staff felt supported, staff supervisions were not always happening regularly for all staff.” from the report
- 01Have all staff recruitment files now got the required checks, including evidence from previous relevant employment?
- 02What happened when the low water temperature readings were rechecked, and have all legionella actions been completed?
- 03How quickly are telephone calls from relatives answered, and what other ways are available to contact the home?
- 04How often are staff supervisions now taking place, and how do you check that none are missed?
- 05How regularly are resident and relative meetings now held?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 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 2019
Basingfield Court Residential Care Home is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements in safety now fully embedded.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 29 March 2019. Inspectors and Experts by Experience spoke with people, relatives were not named, and staff. They observed care and mealtimes and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints information and accident records.
The home supported 49 older people, some living with dementia. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines systems and suitable risk assessments. People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care reflected their needs, choices and preferences.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safety had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The inspectors said the improvements were fully embedded and identified no concerns at this inspection.
Safety improved
The home had continued earlier improvements and inspectors found that they were now fully embedded. Risk assessments gave staff specific guidance to reduce risks such as falls, choking and malnutrition.
“At this inspection we found the provider had continued to make improvements which were fully embedded.” from the report
Medicines were well managed
Medicines were stored correctly and staff were checked as competent. Records had no unexplained gaps, and regular audits were used to correct errors or omissions.
“Medicines administration records we reviewed were completed accurately with no unexplained gaps.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking kindly, responding promptly and making time for people. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff knew people well, took time to speak with them and responded to them quickly if they needed assistance.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences. People were involved in decisions, activities and reviews of their care.
“People received individualised care which was planned around their needs and preferences.” from the report
Strong leadership and checks
Managers used a development plan and audits to monitor quality and safety. Staff roles were clear and the home worked with outside professionals.
“The registered manager used effective systems and processes to monitor and improve quality and safety at Basingfield court.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure the improvements in safety found at this inspection remain fully embedded?
- 02How are medicines audits carried out, and what happens if an error or omission is found?
- 03How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks, such as falls, choking or malnutrition?
- 04How will my relative be involved in updating their care plan and choosing activities?
- 05What communication support, healthcare access and end-of-life planning would be available for my relative?
This was a planned, comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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.
Every inspection of Basingfield Court Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Basingfield Court Residential Care Home →
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Basingfield Court Residential Care Home →
- February 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 October 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
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.