CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Capri
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, safeguarding procedures, medicines systems, staffing arrangements and infection-control measures were in place, although some fire-safety improvements had been delayed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and choices. Staff were trained and supported, people received suitable food and healthcare, and the home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful relationships, privacy being maintained, and support for people's dignity, independence and personal choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and updated when needs changed. People had choices about daily life, activities and communication, and the home supported contact with family and friends.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, staff, a relative and a health professional spoke positively about the management. The home used audits and other checks to monitor care, and the manager acted promptly when inspectors identified some improvements.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some delayed fire-safety work and end-of-life wishes not formally recorded.
This was the first inspection since the home was registered under the current provider. One inspector visited on 27 May 2021, spoke with five people, staff and the manager, observed care, and checked the environment, medicines and infection control.
Inspectors found all five areas were Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they were happy and felt safe. Staff were described as kind, consistent and knowledgeable. Care was tailored to people's choices, health needs, communication and independence.
The home had enough permanent staff, safe medicines systems and suitable infection controls. Inspectors noted delays in completing some fire-safety improvements. Staff did not always wear masks when not providing direct care, and people's end-of-life wishes had not been formally recorded.
Good means inspectors found people's outcomes were consistently good and that the service was consistently managed and well-led. This was a planned inspection based on the length of time since registration.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness, dignity and compassion. Staff respected privacy and built warm, positive relationships.
“People were treated with dignity, and their privacy was respected.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices and take positive risks, such as going out independently. Staff aimed to provide support without unnecessary restrictions.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Consistent staffing
Inspectors found enough permanent staff who knew people's needs. Staff had time to provide care, activities and conversation.
“People were supported by appropriate numbers of consistent, permanent staff.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored, administered and audited safely. Records showed people received their medicines as prescribed.
“There were safe systems in place for the management of medicines.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, communication styles and interests. Staff knew how to provide individual support.
“Care plans had been developed for each person and provided detailed information to enable staff to support people in a personalised way.” from the report
Delayed fire-safety work
needs fixingSome work identified through fire-safety checks, including replacing some bedroom doors, had not yet been completed. The home said extra monitoring was being used until the work was finished.
“We noted that there had been a delay in attending to some improvements.” from the report
Masks not always worn
minorStaff said they did not always wear masks when they were in the home but not providing direct care. The home had a risk assessment and extra symptom monitoring because some people were distressed by masks.
“However, they said they did not always wear masks at other times when in the home.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
minorNo one was receiving end-of-life care during the inspection, but people's specific end-of-life wishes had not been formally recorded.
“Specific end of life wishes had not been formally recorded, although the registered manager had a relevant assessment document from the local hospice should this be required.” from the report
- 01What fire-safety improvements were still outstanding after the inspection, and have they now been completed?
- 02How do you manage the infection risk when staff are not wearing masks inside the home?
- 03How will you record and review my relative's end-of-life wishes?
- 04How often are medicines records and stock levels audited, and how are any errors dealt with?
- 05How will you keep me informed about changes in my relative's health, care plan or wellbeing?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control measures relating to COVID-19. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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.
Every inspection of Capri
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- June 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 April 2019.
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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.