CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bowes House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Bowes House was rated Good; inspectors found safe care and improved management, with the inspection focused on medicines, choking risks and leadership.
Inspectors visited on 30 April 2021. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records and management systems.
They found medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, and staff understood how to support people at risk of choking. There were enough staff, safe recruitment processes and suitable COVID-19 infection control measures.
The home had improved its systems for checking quality and learning from incidents. People and relatives spoke positively about the care and support. Safe and well-led were both rated Good.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only. The other question ratings were not checked during this visit and were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Safe medicines management
Staff were trained and checked as competent. Medicines were stored securely, reviewed regularly and given when people needed them.
“Medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Choking risk support
Care plans clearly recorded modified diet advice, and staff had relevant training. Inspectors observed people being supported in line with their care plans.
“Staff who were responsible for supporting people with food and drink had received appropriate training including International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) training.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to care for people safely and safe systems for recruiting new staff.
“There were enough suitable staff to care for people safely.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had strengthened its audits, management oversight and approach to learning from incidents. The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“At this inspection we found that systems had improved.” from the report
Positive views from people and relatives
People and relatives described the care positively. They said staff promoted dignity, listened to people and responded to their needs.
“People and their relatives spoke highly of the care and support they received at Bowes House.” from the report
Manager registration
minorAt the inspection, the home did not have a manager registered with the CQC. The manager was applying to become registered.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Use of agency staff
minorThe home regularly used agency staff to cover vacancies and absences. Inspectors still found staffing levels safe, but families may wish to ask how continuity is maintained.
“Records showed there was regular use of agency staff to ensure that vacancies and absences were covered.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now become registered with the CQC, and if not, what is the current position?
- 02How do you check that agency staff know each person's care plan and choking support needs?
- 03What checks are now carried out on medicines administration, and how are any errors followed up?
- 04How are lessons from choking incidents or near misses shared with all staff?
- 05How do you maintain continuity of care when agency staff cover vacancies or absences?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 June 2021 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 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home needed to improve its leadership and medicines monitoring.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 5 February 2019. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicine records, complaints, incidents and quality checks. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals, and observed care, activities and mealtimes.
People were generally safe and received care that met their needs. Staff responded to call bells promptly, supported people with food, drink and healthcare, and treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors also found a wide choice of activities and personalised support, including for people living with dementia.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because medicine audits and some medicine care plans were not reliable enough, and one covert medicines decision was not properly recorded.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw staff respond to call bells promptly. The home had reviewed call bell response times and changed staffing at busy times.
“At this inspection call bells were answered promptly and there were enough staff to attend to people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were respectful and caring. Inspectors saw staff provide reassurance, protect dignity and encourage people to remain as independent as possible.
“People received person centred care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Activities and choice
There was a broad programme of activities, including links with the local community. People could choose not to join in, and staff offered individual activities to people who preferred to stay in their rooms.
“There was a range of activities within the service and there was plenty of choice available every day.” from the report
Food and drink
People had plenty to eat and drink, with choices for specific dietary needs. Inspectors found meals were good quality and staff adapted support to people's needs.
“People with specific dietary requirements had their needs met and were given a choice.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingPeople received medicines on time, but some records were inaccurate. Audits did not always identify stock problems or missing guidance about when some medicines should be given.
“Although some medicine records were not always maintained accurately, this had not impacted on people.” from the report
Covert medicines decision
needs fixingFor one person, medicines were given covertly without a recorded best interests meeting involving family or an advocate. The manager said the process would be reviewed.
“There was no record of a best interests meeting involving family or advocates to agree if administering medicines without the person knowing were in the person best interests.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine audits since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure medicine records and stock levels are accurate?
- 03How are clear, person-centred instructions recorded for as-required medicines and pain assessment medicines?
- 04How are best interests meetings arranged and recorded when medicines are given covertly?
- 05How do you monitor call bell response times and staffing levels now?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the care and premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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.
Every inspection of Bowes House
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 June 2013.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East 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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.