CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bletchingley
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The home assessed and reviewed risks, had enough staff and managed medicines safely. It also had suitable arrangements for safeguarding, infection control, emergencies and learning from accidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed to care for people. People received enough food and drink, could access healthcare, and were supported in line with capacity and consent requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, patient and compassionate. People’s privacy, dignity, independence, choices and involvement in care were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and person-centred. The home supported individual communication needs, activities, complaints and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a friendly, open and inclusive culture. The home involved people, relatives and staff, carried out quality checks and worked with outside professionals.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with activities being further developed.
This was the home’s first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 16 October 2018. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, meals, medicines and activities. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and quality checks.
The inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems, well-managed risks and good infection control. Staff had the training and support needed, and people received enough food, drink and healthcare.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. Care plans were personal and detailed. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. The home also had arrangements for complaints, end-of-life care and working with other services.
The home was registered in July 2017, so there was no earlier inspection rating to compare with. An activities coordinator had recently been recruited to expand activities and offer more opportunities to go out into the community.
Safety systems
Risks were assessed and reviewed, staff numbers were suitable, and medicines and infection control were managed safely.
“Systems, processes and practices safeguarded people from abuse.” from the report
Kind staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, respect and compassion. Staff knew people well and supported their choices.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion by staff that knew them well.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people’s needs, preferences and communication. People were encouraged to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered choices at mealtimes and received support with nutrition. Staff worked with GPs and other health professionals when needs changed.
“People had sufficient to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Open management
The inspection found a positive culture, with feedback from people, relatives and staff used to improve the service.
“There was a positive culture in the service that was open and inclusive.” from the report
Activities were still being expanded
minorActivities were available, but an activities coordinator had only recently been recruited to increase and vary them, including community opportunities. Ask what has changed since the inspection.
“An activities coordinator had recently been recruited, to increase and vary the activities provided for people and include opportunities for them to go out into the community.” from the report
- 01How has the activities programme changed since the activities coordinator was recruited, and how often can residents go out into the community?
- 02How will you set and review my relative’s personal care goals if they use the six-week reablement service?
- 03How will you involve me and my relative in care planning and decisions about treatment?
- 04How do you make sure risks such as falls are reviewed when my relative’s needs change?
- 05How will you support my relative’s communication, food and drink needs, and access to healthcare?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 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 Bletchingley
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 July 2017.
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.