CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Burlington Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring support and safe medicines, but recruitment checks and oversight were not reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 July 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were positive about staff. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs and infection control arrangements were mostly assured.
However, three staff files did not contain all the required checks before employment began. The home also did not have strong enough systems to monitor recruitment. Inspectors found breaches of Regulations 17 and 19.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other three areas were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were used.
Caring staff
Inspectors saw staff spend time with people, treat them as individuals and involve them in choices.
“People received their support from caring staff. Throughout the inspection we saw staff spend time with people and treated everyone as an individual.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely. Staff were trained and records were complete and accurate.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) were complete and accurate.” from the report
Risk management
People had detailed, current risk assessments. These gave staff guidance on how to reduce identified risks.
“People had personalised, detailed and up to date risk assessments.” from the report
Staffing levels
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with staff responding to call bells quickly.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with health professionals, and professionals gave positive feedback about communication and staff continuity.
“People benefited from partnership working with other local health professionals.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousThree of the four staff files checked were missing full pre-employment checks. Some people started work before references or application forms were completed.
“Three staff files we viewed were missing full pre-employment checks.” from the report
Weak recruitment oversight
seriousThe system used to track checks contained gaps, and managers had not identified all of them. This was also linked to a breach of good governance requirements.
“The provider did not have robust oversight of recruitment processes.” from the report
Mask handling
minorInspectors saw staff touching or adjusting their face masks. The manager arranged refresher training after this was raised.
“During the inspection we observed staff regularly touching or readjusting their facemasks.” from the report
- 01Have all current staff now had full pre-employment checks, including references, employment history and education checks?
- 02How do you now make sure nobody starts work before all required recruitment checks are complete?
- 03What changes have you made to the recruitment audit and tracking system since this inspection?
- 04What evidence can you show that the action plan required by CQC has been completed?
- 05What refresher training was given after inspectors saw staff touching or adjusting their face masks?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 August 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, October 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led because some care plans lacked important personal details.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 23 July 2019. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective, caring and responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, safer recruitment, improved risk management, safe medicines, kind care, suitable activities and good access to health professionals.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Management systems had improved greatly, but some care plans did not record important information about people's communication needs, learning difficulties, likes and dislikes.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the service generally met people's needs at the time of the visit. The report says the home had previously been rated Requires Improvement and Inadequate, with multiple breaches, but was no longer in breach at this inspection.
Safer care systems
Inspectors found major improvements in staffing, recruitment, risk management and medicines. They found enough staff and evidence that risks were monitored.
“At this inspection we found significant improvements had been made to ensure there were safe staffing and recruitment systems and processes in place to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed friendly, calm interactions and support that protected people's dignity.
“People and relatives told us they thought the staff were kind, caring, helpful and respectful and this was evident in our observations throughout the day.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered a structured programme with activities such as music, exercise, films, memory games and flower arranging. Staff also supported people to maintain relationships.
“People living at the home had a structured programme of activities throughout the week, these were facilitated by the activity coordinator and staff members.” from the report
Care plans did not contain all personal details
needs fixingSome care plans did not record learning difficulties, communication approaches, or specific likes and dislikes that staff knew about. This could make it harder for every staff member to provide care in the same way.
“We found that, whilst people's care plans were personalised, some information and detail was missing.” from the report
Management systems still being embedded
minorThe electronic care planning system was still being developed, and the report says further improvement was needed to ensure records accurately reflected people's needs.
“The management team continues to transfer people's paper records onto the electronic system, this work continues to be embedded.” from the report
- 01How do you check that each person's care plan records their communication needs, learning difficulties, likes and dislikes?
- 02What has been done to complete the move from paper care records to the electronic system?
- 03How do you make sure all staff follow the same approach when supporting a person's choices and communication?
- 04How do you check that care plans are updated promptly when someone's health or care needs change?
- 05What improvements have been made since the inspection to strengthen management and oversight?
This was a comprehensive unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and following up on concerns and breaches identified at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 October 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 Burlington Nursing Home
6 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2018Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
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.