CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Buttermere House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were managed safely. People said they felt safe and there were enough staff to meet their needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care assessments covered people's health, communication and support needs. Staff had relevant training and supported people with food, healthcare, mobility and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed treating people kindly and respectfully. People and relatives were involved in care planning and people's choices were recorded.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, goals and progress. People had individual activity timetables and information was provided in formats suited to their communication needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality checks, a clear management structure and systems for learning from incidents and complaints. People, relatives and staff were involved in developing the service.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Buttermere House rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong support for independence.
This was the home's first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 16 and 17 March 2023, with a visit on 16 March. One inspector spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care plans, training records and quality checks.
The home supported six people with complex learning disabilities, including autism, although it was registered for up to 10 people. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and effective infection control. Staff were trained and knew the people they supported well.
People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and responsive. Care was planned around people's choices, communication needs, goals and activities. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was a planned first inspection, so there was no earlier rating to compare.
Support for independence
People were supported to work towards personal goals and to have control over their daily lives, including accessing the community.
“People were supported by staff to work towards their individual goals and objectives.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed caring support, and people and relatives said staff knew people well and treated them as individuals.
“People and their relatives told us staff were respectful and treated people as individuals.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were planned around individual goals and preferences. These included cooking, baking, walks and trips into the local town.
“People had individual timetables of activities they wished to undertake, such as cooking and baking, walks around the grounds and trips into the local town.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records included important details such as allergies and photographs. Staff had training and checks, and audits looked for possible errors.
“People's medicines were managed in a safe way.” from the report
Quality oversight
The management team carried out audits and followed up actions. Records and notifications were reported as accurate and timely.
“Quality audits were undertaken and actions arising were followed up.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's specific communication needs, and which easy-read or pictorial information could they use?
- 02How would you assess and manage my relative's individual risks, including risks when going into the community?
- 03How would you help my relative work towards their personal goals and maintain independence?
- 04If agency staff were used, how would you make sure they knew my relative's needs and routines?
- 05How would my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and choosing activities and meals?
This was the home's first planned inspection and covered all five CQC key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 2023 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 Buttermere House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 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
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.