CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bassett House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, available care but weaknesses in risk records, recruitment checks and oversight.
This was an announced, focused inspection on 22 April 2021. Inspectors reviewed safety and how the home was managed. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
People generally said they felt safe and were well cared for. Staff were visible, call bells were answered quickly, medicines were managed safely, and the home was clean. Relatives also said communication during the pandemic had been good.
However, some risk assessments and care records were generic, out of date or inaccurate. Recruitment checks were not always complete. The systems used to check quality had not always found these problems. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, and the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection.
Staff available
Inspectors saw enough staff to support people safely. Staff were visible and call bells were answered promptly.
“On the day of this inspection we observed staffing levels to be sufficient to safely support people.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff and management. Staff said they felt supported.
“The service promoted a positive culture. People told us they were happy living at Bassett and praised the management and staff team.” from the report
Communication
Relatives said the home kept them informed during the pandemic and helped them maintain contact with family members.
“People's relatives felt communication from the service during the pandemic had been good and enabled them to keep in touch with family members.” from the report
Inaccurate risk and care records
seriousSome assessments were generic or conflicted with other records. Repositioning records did not show that people had received support as often as their assessed needs required.
“This meant due to poor recording it could not be evidenced that people had received support in line with their identified needs to reduce the risk of developing a pressure ulcer.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousSome staff files did not contain satisfactory evidence about previous conduct, complete employment histories or reasons for leaving care roles. The manager said recruitment checks had been tightened.
“This meant that extra safety procedures that may have needed to be put in place upon employment had not been identified.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
needs fixingAudits were carried out, but they had not always identified problems with records and recruitment files in time to take action.
“However, concerns around inaccurate documentation and recording for risk assessments, monitoring information and recruitment files had not always been picked up in order to take timely action.” from the report
PPE practice
needs fixingInspectors saw one staff member move between rooms without changing PPE. Some mask boxes were left open, which could have increased the chance of contamination.
“The majority of staff wore PPE appropriately; however, we did observe one member of staff going from room to room without changing their PPE.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure risk assessments are personalised, current and consistent across all care records?
- 02How do you now check that repositioning records accurately show the support each person has received?
- 03What recruitment checks are completed before a new member of staff starts, including previous employment and gaps in work history?
- 04What action was taken after the concerns about PPE being changed between rooms and open mask boxes?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan for the Regulation 17 breach, and when was the last quality check?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 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, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and effective leadership, with some care planning and mealtime staffing issues to check.
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home, its care and how it was run. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines, recruitment, safeguarding, risk management, cleanliness and maintenance were handled safely.
People were supported by kind staff who promoted choice, privacy and independence. Inspectors also found good access to food, activities, healthcare, end of life support and complaint processes.
The home had made all the improvements required after the previous inspection in June 2017, when there had been four care-related breaches and one registration breach. Inspectors recommended clearer care plans for people needing one-to-one support because of behaviour.
Improvements since the last inspection
The home had completed all the improvements required after the previous inspection and was rated Good overall.
“At this inspection the service had made all of the required improvements and we rated the service Good.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff respect privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“Without exception people and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans covered people's needs and included practical guidance for staff. They were reviewed regularly when needs changed.
“Care plans were detailed and contained guidance for staff to make sure people were supported safely.” from the report
Strong oversight
The home used regular checks across areas such as medicines, care plans and housekeeping. Actions were assigned and completed in good time.
“There were quality monitoring systems in place for all areas.” from the report
One-to-one behaviour support plans
needs fixingSome people who needed extra supervision because of behaviour did not have a consistent care plan explaining how staff should communicate with them or support them. Inspectors made a recommendation for the home to seek further guidance.
“We found not all those people had a care plan in place to direct staff on the management of the behaviours, such as how they should communicate with the person or appropriate interventions.” from the report
Busy mealtimes
needs fixingSome people felt staff were rushed or that they had to wait for help at mealtimes. The manager said the home was recruiting for an additional hostess role and planned to train housekeeping staff to help.
“Some people did share with us they felt that mealtimes required additional staff to support them.” from the report
Medicine fridge checks
minorThe fridge temperature had dipped on some occasions. The manager said the thermometer would be reset daily.
“We found the minimum temperature record for the fridge demonstrated it had dipped on occasion.” from the report
Some training gaps
minorThere were gaps in mandatory COSHH training. The manager said this was being organised so all staff could attend.
“There were some gaps in COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) training, which the provider deemed mandatory.” from the report
- 01What care plans are now in place for people who need one-to-one support because of behaviour?
- 02How do you make sure staff know how to communicate with and support someone who may become distressed or show challenging behaviour?
- 03Has the extra staffing planned for mealtimes been recruited, and how many staff are available to help people eat and drink?
- 04How are medicine fridge temperatures checked and what happens if the temperature falls outside the required range?
- 05Have all staff completed the mandatory COSHH training identified in the report?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole home, including all five key questions, care provided, the premises and how the service was managed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 October 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 Bassett House
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- May 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 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.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 March 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“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.