CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Care for Veterans
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, medicines were given safely, equipment was maintained and staffing levels were sufficient. Some people gave mixed feedback about staff availability at night and weekends, and some safeguarding incidents had not been reported to CQC.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission, and staff had training and supervision. The home supported dietary needs, healthcare access and rehabilitation through therapists and accessible facilities.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described and observed as kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care and encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and communication needs were supported. Activities were available but had been restricted during the COVID-19 outbreak, and care plans were being moved to a new electronic system.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers involved people and relatives, used audits and reviewed incidents to improve the service. Inspectors noted the missed notifications to CQC and gave feedback about staff meetings.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Care for Veterans was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some issues around staffing, activities and reporting safeguarding concerns.
Inspectors visited without warning on 21 and 22 February 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and the home's policies and audits.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, equipment and infection control were generally managed properly.
The home supported people with physical disabilities and complex needs, including nursing care. It offered therapies, rehabilitation, accessible facilities and support from health professionals. Activities were reduced during a COVID-19 outbreak, and people gave mixed views about food and staff availability at night and weekends.
The rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in July 2017. The report identified that some safeguarding incidents had not always been reported to CQC, although they had been reported to the local authority and no-one was harmed as a result.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed, equipment was checked and medicines were administered and recorded safely.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with dignity and staff knew their preferences and needs. Independence was encouraged.
“People were looked after by kind, patient and caring staff who knew them well.” from the report
Rehabilitation and healthcare
People had access to therapists, healthcare professionals, a gym and support to build independence.
“A team of therapists supported people as part of their rehabilitation.” from the report
Accessible facilities
The home had adapted kitchens, dining areas, bathrooms and wet rooms to support wheelchair users and people with limited mobility.
“The home was adapted to meet people's needs.” from the report
Involvement and improvement
People could attend residents' meetings, raise concerns and give feedback. Managers used audits and incident reviews to identify improvements.
“A system of audits had been implemented to drive improvement.” from the report
Safeguarding reports to CQC
seriousSome allegations of abuse were referred to the local authority but were not always notified to CQC as required. The report says no-one was harmed as a result, and the manager was reminded of the requirement.
“Although safeguarding referrals had been made to the local authority when incidents occurred, these had not always been notified to CQC.” from the report
Activities during the outbreak
minorActivities and use of the wellbeing hub were restricted during the COVID-19 outbreak. Staff provided some one-to-one activities in people's rooms where possible.
“A variety of activities and pursuits were available to people throughout the day, although these had become restricted due to the outbreak of COVID-19 recently within the home.” from the report
Care plans being changed
needs fixingCare plans were being transferred to a new electronic system. Staff were still checking that all information was current and learning how to use it.
“Staff were still in the process of ensuring all the information within care plans was current, and receiving training on how to operate the system.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally on duty at night and at weekends, and how do you make sure they know my relative's needs?
- 02What action have you taken to make sure every safeguarding allegation is reported to CQC when required?
- 03Has the move to the new electronic care planning system been completed, and how do you check that information remains up to date?
- 04What activities are available now, including use of the wellbeing hub and trips outside the home?
- 05How are residents' views about food collected and acted on?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC key questions, including the premises, care provided and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with a minor gap in staff supervision records.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 11 and 19 April 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with 15 people, three relatives and staff, and checked care records, staff files, medicines records, rotas, training and complaints.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines handling, suitable training, personalised care plans, kind relationships and good access to rehabilitation and health professionals.
The home was rated Good at its previous inspection in October 2014 and remained Good. Inspectors identified some inconsistent staff supervision and one missing set of recruitment references, but the manager acted promptly on these issues.
Safe care
Inspectors found that people felt safe, risks were managed and staffing was sufficient to meet people's needs.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff were observed to be respectful, patient and compassionate. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“We observed that all staff genuinely cared for people and treated them with respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, goals and guidance for staff. Rehabilitation programmes were tailored to each person.
“Care plans provided detailed information and guidance to staff on how to support people in a responsive way.” from the report
Health and rehabilitation
People had access to therapists and other healthcare professionals, including physiotherapy, speech and language support and occupational therapy.
“People had access to health care services and to a range of healthcare professionals on site.” from the report
Staff supervision was inconsistent
needs fixingRoutine face-to-face supervision did not always happen as required by the home's procedures. The manager took immediate action to arrange a missed meeting.
“routine face to face supervision meetings for some staff with their line manager had not always taken place.” from the report
One recruitment record was incomplete
minorInspectors could not find references for one staff member who had been promoted. The manager and human resources team promptly contacted previous employers.
“We were unable to locate references for one staff member who had recently been promoted to a senior care worker role.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure all staff receive their planned supervision meetings on time?
- 02What was the outcome of the missing recruitment references identified during the inspection?
- 03How would you assess and support my relative's rehabilitation goals and access to physiotherapy or other therapists?
- 04Would my relative have a private or shared bedroom, and how would you protect their privacy if the room is shared?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans and reporting any changes in their relative's needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating, with the home remaining Good since the October 2014 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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 Care for Veterans
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 2011.
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.