CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bonhomie
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were safeguarded and risks to their health and safety were identified and managed. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were also checked and found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff had suitable training and support. People had access to healthcare and were supported with their mental health needs, eating, drinking and independence.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's choices, privacy, equality, relationships and personal goals.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and staff understood people's needs, preferences, distress triggers and goals. People could choose how to spend their time and could get support to go out.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People and staff spoke positively about the management team, but governance systems were not yet robust. Audit actions were not clearly tracked, and some arrangements would not be enough if the home reached full capacity.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the well-led rating was Requires Improvement.
This was the first inspection after the home registered. It was unannounced and took place on 14 June 2022. Inspectors spoke with four of the five people living there, four staff members and reviewed care, medicine and staff records.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, medicines were generally managed safely, and staff supported people with their mental and physical health. People described staff as kind, respectful and available when needed.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because quality checks did not clearly show which actions were complete, and some systems would need strengthening as the home grows.
Safe, balanced risk support
Staff understood people's risks and supported independence through positive risk taking. Emergency plans and safety checks were in place.
“Risks were identified and managed in a way that balanced people's safety and right to independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that people's dignity, privacy and personal choices were respected.
“People were treated with kindness and respect, and their equality, diversity and human rights upheld.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences and goals. Staff knew how to recognise distress and respond to individual needs.
“People had person centred care plans which provided staff with a wide range of information, their likes and dislikes, preferences and personal histories.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
Staff supported people to attend appointments and worked with specialist mental health, substance misuse and other health services.
“Staff engaged with specialist teams to support people with their mental health and access specialist services.” from the report
Audit actions were not clearly tracked
needs fixingThe home used audits, but records did not clearly show which improvements had been completed and which remained outstanding. The manager said an overall improvement plan would be developed.
“A series of audits were used to monitor compliance, but it was not clearly identifiable which actions had been completed and those that were still outstanding.” from the report
Medicine storage may not support full capacity
needs fixingThe current medicine storage was adequate for five people but would not be enough if the home reached its capacity of 19 people. The manager said more storage would be created before numbers increased.
“This would not be sufficient were the service to be running at full capacity.” from the report
More engagement about activities
minorSome written feedback asked for more group activities and outings. Inspectors said people might need more involvement in discussing the social opportunities available.
“We reflected that this might be an area where people needed additional engagement about the social opportunities available to them.” from the report
PRN medicine records
minorInspectors asked the home to record whether occasional medicines had worked after they were given. The manager agreed to introduce this immediately.
“We highlighted that it was best practice to record whether the administration of a PRN medicine had been effective or not” from the report
- 01What has been added to the overall service improvement plan, and how do you track which audit actions are complete?
- 02Has additional medicine storage been installed before increasing the number of people living here?
- 03How do you record whether occasional medicines have worked after they are given?
- 04What group activities, outings and individual interests are currently available?
- 05How will staffing, management cover and quality checks change if the home grows beyond five people?
This was the first inspection after registration and covered all five key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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.
Every inspection of Bonhomie
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 April 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.