CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bickerley Green Care Home with Nursing
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns. Medicines were generally managed safely, but staff did not always complete the required checks consistently.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisal arrangements. People were supported with food, drinks and access to healthcare, and staff followed instructions for modified diets and fluids.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw positive, calm interactions. Staff treated people with dignity and respect, involved them in decisions and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home provided activities, community links and support tailored to people's interests and communication needs. However, some care plans lacked enough detail to guide staff fully.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive, person-centred culture and regular quality and safety audits. Managers sought feedback from people, relatives and staff and used it to make changes.
What inspectors found, June 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, but some care plans and medicines checks were not consistently complete.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 and 5 August 2019. The inspectors spoke with seven people, two relatives, ten staff and six health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were described as kind, respectful and well trained. Inspectors also found good support with food, drinks, healthcare, activities and people's independence.
There were some weaknesses. Care plans were not consistently detailed enough, and staff did not always complete medicines checks at the end of every shift. The report says staff knowing people well reduced the risk, but these records still needed improvement. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People and professionals described staff as caring, patient and respectful. Inspectors observed positive interactions and said staff were not rushing people.
“Staff developed caring relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual choices and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Good safety systems
The home assessed risks such as falls, malnutrition and pressure sores. It also had systems for safeguarding, emergencies, equipment checks and learning from incidents.
“Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been identified, assessed and actions had been taken to minimise the risks” from the report
Good staff training
New staff completed an induction and shadowed experienced staff. Mandatory training and supervision were used to help staff meet people's needs.
“The provider's induction programme for new staff involved eight days of essential training during the first four weeks” from the report
Activities and community links
People could choose group or one-to-one activities. The home supported trips, community involvement and activities such as choir, music and art.
“The service had good links with the local community.” from the report
Strong management oversight
Managers used regular audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care and make improvements. Inspectors found a committed team and a person-centred culture.
“The service was well organised and supported by a motivated staff team.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans were clear and personal, but others did not explain enough about the support people needed. Examples included continence care and what to do during a diabetes-related emergency.
“Some people's care plans were not detailed enough, and this could compromise the care and support they required and received.” from the report
Medicines checks were inconsistent
needs fixingStaff were expected to check medicines administration records and stock at the end of every shift. Inspectors found that not all staff completed this consistently.
“However, work was still needed to ensure all staff consistently completed this.” from the report
Wound dressing plans
minorRecords about wounds included photographs, measurements and pain checks. Inspectors said the records would be stronger with a clear plan setting out which dressings to use and how often to review them.
“However, this could be further enhanced by containing a clear dressing plan detailing dressings to use and frequency of review.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every person's care plan gives clear instructions for continence care, urinary infection risks and diabetes emergencies?
- 02How are medicines administration records and medicine stock checked on every shift, and what happens when a check is missed?
- 03What clear dressing plans are now used for people with wounds?
- 04How are families involved in reviewing care plans when a person's health or support needs change?
- 05How do you make sure activities are matched to each person's interests, abilities and communication needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care provided, records, staff arrangements and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 June 2020 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, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with effective staffing, training and management.
This was an unannounced inspection over 30 November and 1 December 2016. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. The inspector also reviewed care records, staff files, medicines information, staffing rosters and quality checks.
People were described as safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, respectful care and regular reviews of people's needs. Meals and drinks met people's needs, and people had access to healthcare professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The home had also received a Good rating overall. The previous inspection on 28 May 2014 found no concerns.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were based on people's needs and that staff were not rushed. Staffing was kept under review as people's needs changed.
“There were enough skilled staff deployed to support people and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen spending time with people, explaining care and supporting choices. People's privacy was respected when staff entered bedrooms.
“Staff provided care to people in a kind, attentive and compassionate way.” from the report
Good care planning
Care plans were reviewed with people or their representatives and updated when medicines or health needs changed. Staff handovers helped maintain continuity.
“Care plans had been updated to reflect any changes to ensure continuity of their care and support.” from the report
Good management checks
The manager and provider carried out audits covering training, hygiene, health and safety and care records. People, relatives and staff were also asked for their views.
“The registered manager carried out regular audits and checks.” from the report
Food and healthcare
Meals were freshly prepared and adapted to individual dietary needs. People had access to GPs and other health professionals when needed.
“People had food that was nutritious and freshly prepared to meet their individual dietary requirements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you adjust staffing when a person's care or nursing needs change?
- 02Are any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications for my relative still waiting for authorisation?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will I be involved?
- 04What activities would suit my relative's interests and needs, and how are activities changed if their needs change?
- 05Who should I contact if I have a concern, and how will it be investigated and resolved?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality areas, carried out on 30 November and 1 December 2016; the previous inspection on 28 May 2014 found no concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 2017 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 Bickerley Green Care Home with Nursing
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Bickerley Green Care Home with Nursing →
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Bickerley Green Care Home with Nursing →
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 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.