CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Canford Chase
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and risks were regularly assessed. Medicines were generally managed safely, but inspectors recommended that audits specifically check for out of date and no longer required medicines.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- The home provided strong support with eating, drinking and complex health needs. Staff training, links with health professionals and standards of nursing care were particularly strong.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence, and got to know people's preferences.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was tailored to people's needs and wishes. Inspectors found a wide activity programme, strong community links and outstanding end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives, staff and health professionals gave consistently positive feedback about how the home was run. The home used meetings, surveys, audits and reviews to improve care.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found excellent personalised care, with some medicines and hand hygiene checks needing attention.
This was a routine comprehensive inspection on 17 and 18 September 2018. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors observed the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Effective care and responsiveness were Outstanding. Safe, caring and well-led were Good. Inspectors found kind staff, strong nursing care, detailed care plans, good support with food and drink, a wide range of activities and particularly strong end of life care.
There were some matters to improve. Medicines audits did not always identify medicines that were out of date or no longer needed. A staff member did not always clean their hands between people during a medicines round. People usually received prompt call-bell responses, although there were occasional waits when staff were busy.
End of life care
Staff had specialist skills and worked with a local hospice to support people who were dying and their loved ones.
“Staff were particularly skilled and confident in caring for people who were dying and their loved ones.” from the report
Personalised care
People and families were involved in care planning. Detailed plans recorded individual needs, preferences and future wishes.
“People and where appropriate their families were meaningfully involved in planning care.” from the report
Activities and community links
Activities reflected people's interests and abilities. The home also offered trips out, one-to-one activities and links with local groups.
“There was a vibrant activity programme based on people's hobbies, interests and wishes and tailored to their individual needs.” from the report
Food and drink
People had choices, suitable portion sizes and support with eating and drinking. Staff monitored nutrition and sought professional advice when needed.
“There was a strong emphasis on the importance of eating and drinking well.” from the report
Medicines checks
seriousA refrigerated skin cream was stored in an ordinary cupboard. Inspectors also found expired tablets and eye drops that should have been disposed of, although they were no longer in use.
“These were no longer in use, but their retention meant there was a risk people could receive them.” from the report
Hand hygiene
needs fixingDuring a medicines round, the staff member giving medicines did not always clean their hands before moving to the next person. This was raised with the management team.
“However, during a medicines round, the member of staff administering medicines did not always clean their hands when moving on to the next person.” from the report
Occasional call-bell waits
minorCall bells were generally answered promptly, but people sometimes had to wait when staff were busy.
“People told us their call bells were generally answered promptly, although on occasion they had to wait if staff were busy.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicines audits since inspectors found expired medicines and a refrigerated cream stored incorrectly?
- 02How do you check that medicines no longer needed are removed promptly?
- 03How do you monitor hand hygiene during medicines rounds?
- 04How quickly are call bells answered when staff are busy, and what happens if there is a delay?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in monthly care reviews and end of life planning?
This was a routine comprehensive inspection covering the premises, care and management of the home, with ratings given for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Canford Chase is rated Good; inspectors found that earlier problems with medicines, risk assessments and staffing had been addressed.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 22 June 2017. One inspector visited, spoke with people, staff, managers and a relative, and checked care plans, medicine records, audits, maintenance records and recruitment files.
The inspection followed a previous rating of Requires Improvement for safety. Inspectors found significant improvements. Medicines were managed safely, risks such as pressure sores were assessed and managed, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
The overall rating remained Good. The safety rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The other areas were not assessed during this visit and carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Medicines management
The home had improved its systems for obtaining, storing, giving and recording medicines. Staff had training and competency checks.
“There were systems in place to ensure medicines were obtained, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Managing pressure sore risks
Care plans gave staff clearer instructions about equipment and repositioning. Records showed that the plans were being followed.
“Records demonstrating when people changed position and that equipment had been checked were up to date and showed that care plans and risk assessments were being followed.” from the report
Staffing
The home increased staffing after checking call bell response times. Staff said they were then better able to meet people's needs.
“Staff confirmed that they felt better able to meet people's needs with the increased staffing level.” from the report
People felt safe
The people inspectors spoke with said they felt safe and well cared for.
“The people living at the home told us that they felt safe and well cared for.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are topical creams assessed, planned for and recorded now?
- 02How do you check that pressure sore prevention plans and repositioning records are completed correctly?
- 03What are the current call bell response times, and how do you monitor them?
- 04How do you decide the number of staff needed on each shift?
- 05How are medicine audits and staff competency checks carried out, and what happens when an issue is found?
This was a focused inspection of Safe only; the other areas were not assessed and carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 July 2017 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 Canford Chase
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Good to Outstanding.
- December 2018Outstandingcurrent ratingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.