CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bosworth Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, suitable risk assessments and prompt responses to call bells. Medicines were stored and administered safely, and earlier concerns about medicines and cleanliness had been addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had personalised care plans, access to healthcare and support with food and drink. Staff had relevant training and understood how to support people who lacked capacity to make some decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with warmth, kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, supported to remain independent and able to maintain important personal, cultural and spiritual contacts.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff knew people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. The home had improved its activities provision and gave people choice about activities and how they spent their time.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, good teamwork and regular checks on safety and quality. The home involved people and relatives and used audits, training and feedback to improve care.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found that earlier problems with medicines, cleanliness, infection control, equipment and safety had been addressed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 and 5 February 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files, training records and safety checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and happy. Inspectors found kind care, personalised support, good staffing and improved systems for medicines, cleanliness and safety.
At the previous inspection, the home was rated Requires Improvement and had three legal breaches. Inspectors said the earlier shortfalls had been addressed and the rating had improved. The CQC will continue to monitor information about the home until its next inspection.
Earlier problems addressed
The home had made the improvements required after the previous inspection. Medicines, cleanliness, infection control and equipment safety were checked and found to be better.
“At this inspection we found the shortfalls had been addressed and the rating had improved.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
People received medicines on time and as prescribed. Records were complete, staff had training and competency checks, and weekly audits were used to identify errors quickly.
“Medicines Administration Records (MAR) were complete and legible. Weekly medicines audits were carried out which meant any errors were identified quickly minimising risks to people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that staff knew people well. People were supported to make choices and stay as independent as possible.
“People were treated with warmth and kindness by staff.” from the report
Personalised activities and support
The home had recruited an activities coordinator and checked whether activities met people's wishes. Staff adapted activities and communication to people's disabilities and sensory needs.
“People had choice and control over how they spent their time.” from the report
Open management and teamwork
Staff described supportive management and good teamwork. Regular checks, staff training and feedback from people and relatives were used to maintain and improve the service.
“The management and staff understood their roles and responsibilities.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the improvements to medicines management checked now, including PRN medicines, storage and weekly audits?
- 02How do you check that the home remains clean and free from malodours?
- 03How do you decide whether there are enough staff for the current number and needs of residents?
- 04What activities are now available at weekends, and how are residents' preferences used to plan them?
- 05How are residents and relatives asked for feedback, and how are concerns or complaints followed up?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 2019 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, March 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staffing, cleanliness, medicines records and checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 23 and 26 January 2018. Inspectors spoke with all 14 people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, maintenance records and quality checks.
People were generally treated with kindness and respect. Their care was personalised, staff knew them well, people had suitable food and drink, and healthcare referrals were made when needed. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.
However, inspectors found problems with cleanliness, infection control, some equipment and premises, medicines records and staffing levels. The home was not clean on the first day, and there were not enough staff to provide care, cleaning, cooking and laundry safely. The checks used by managers had not found all these problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The home breached three regulations. Managers took action on several issues during the inspection, but inspectors said they would need to check whether improvements were sustained.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke highly of the staff. Inspectors observed patient, sensitive and compassionate care.
“We observed staff providing care and support in a kind and caring manner.” from the report
Personalised care
People were involved in their care planning. Plans reflected their likes, dislikes, preferences and wider wellbeing needs.
“People received personalised care and support that they directed.” from the report
Training and support
Staff received core training, supervision and appraisals. New staff completed an induction programme and worked alongside experienced staff.
“Staff told us they had felt well supported throughout the process and had always worked alongside a more experienced member of staff when they started their employment.” from the report
Access to healthcare
Staff made appropriate referrals to health professionals, including doctors, nurses, speech and language therapists and dieticians.
“A visiting professional told us the staff at the home were proactive in making referrals to their team.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousSome people did not have plans for medicines taken when needed. Records did not consistently show whether these medicines had been offered or given, and there were some unsigned entries.
“There was not a consistent way for staff to record when they administered or offered PRN medicines.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousOn the first inspection day, bedrooms, equipment, the kitchen and laundry were not clean. Some furniture and surfaces could not be cleaned effectively, and unnamed leg protectors created a cross-infection risk.
“On the first day of the inspection the home, people's bedrooms, furnishings and equipment were not clean.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThere were too few staff to provide care and complete cleaning, cooking and laundry safely. Managers increased staffing during the inspection, but inspectors had not assessed whether this would continue.
“There were not enough staff on duty to care for people, do the cleaning, cooking and laundry safely.” from the report
Safety of the building and equipment
seriousThe bath hoist had not been serviced, there was no current legionella risk plan, wardrobes were not secured and laundry detergents were not stored securely.
“Hazards were not consistently managed so people lived in safe environment.” from the report
Management checks
seriousAudits and quality checks had not identified the problems found by inspectors. This was also an area for improvement at the previous inspection.
“The registered manager's and provider's existing audits and quality assurance systems had not identified these shortfalls” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are now in place, and how are they based on each resident's needs rather than simply the number of residents?
- 02How do you now check that medicines taken when needed are properly planned, offered, administered and recorded?
- 03What cleaning and infection-control checks are completed, and how do you make sure they accurately reflect the condition of the home?
- 04Have the bath hoist, legionella controls, wardrobes and laundry storage been made safe, and can you show the relevant records?
- 05How does management make sure its audits identify problems before they affect residents?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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 Bosworth Care Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 August 2015.
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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.