CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bedhampton Nursing Home and Specialist Care Unit
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but risks were not always managed safely and governance was not robust.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. Inspectors visited without notice on 11 and 12 April 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
Inspectors found that people were not always protected from avoidable harm. Risk assessments, wound care plans, medicines checks and incident records were not always complete or followed. Instructions from health professionals and changes in people's health were not always recorded or shared with staff.
People described staff as kind and respectful, and inspectors rated caring as Good. However, activities were limited, the complaints process was not always followed, staff support was inconsistent and there was no registered manager in post. The overall rating and the ratings for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were kind and inspectors saw staff offering choices and giving people time to make decisions.
“People told us staff were kind to them.” from the report
Good understanding of preferences
Staff knew people's life histories, interests and care preferences, and used this knowledge when supporting them.
“Staff knew people well, their life history, interests and hobbies and were focused on people's respecting personal preferences.” from the report
Choice and least restriction
People were supported to make choices and to have control over their lives, including where they sat at mealtimes.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Safe recruitment and staffing levels
Inspectors found valid background checks in staff files and staffing levels were assessed against people's needs.
“The provider used a dependency tool, which enabled them to assess people's needs and ensured the home was staffed correctly to meet those needs.” from the report
Clean and accessible environment
The home was clean, spacious and accessible, with personalised bedrooms and access to secure gardens.
“The service provided a comfortable environment for people, that was clean, spacious and provided a choice of where people wished to spend their time.” from the report
Risks were not consistently managed
seriousSome people had not been assessed for risks linked to bed rails. Wound treatment plans and accident records were also incomplete or not followed.
“Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing were not always assessed to ensure they were safe from avoidable harm.” from the report
Medicines checks were not reliable
seriousStaff had not always been assessed as competent to administer medicines, and checks of controlled medicines did not always happen as planned.
“Staff had not been assessed as competent to administer medicines safely.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingPeople did not have enough regular social, educational or leisure activities. The home was recruiting an activities officer.
“People were not supported to participate in a range of social, educational or leisure activities.” from the report
Complaints process was incomplete
needs fixingThe complaints policy was out of date and did not explain how to complain externally. Records of investigations and outcomes were not always completed.
“However, the provider had not always followed or completed this process.” from the report
Weak quality oversight
seriousAudits were not always completed or robust. The lack of a registered manager also meant leadership and staff support were inconsistent.
“The provider had failed to ensure governance systems were established and operating effectively to ensure oversight was robust, procedures were followed, and the service improved.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure risks from bed rails, wounds and stairs are assessed and acted on?
- 02How do you now check that staff are competent to administer medicines and that controlled medicines are checked as required?
- 03Who is currently managing the home while you recruit a registered manager, and how are staff supervised?
- 04What regular activities are now available, and how are they matched to each person's interests?
- 05How can we make a complaint, and how will we be told about the investigation and outcome?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered home, covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; inspectors reviewed a sample of care and medicines records. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 May 2023 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 Bedhampton Nursing Home and Specialist Care Unit
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Bedhampton Nursing Home and Specialist Care Unit →
- August 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 July 2021.
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.