CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Caroline House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were safe. These included visitor screening, social distancing, personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention measures during the coronavirus outbreak.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 January 2021. It checked infection prevention and control because the home had experienced a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks safely. Staff had infection control training, and people had individual risk assessments.
The home supported people to stay in contact with relatives through planned visits, video calls, newsletters, garden visits and meetings through a closed window. It also used easy-read information and social stories to explain the pandemic.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide a Good or Outstanding rating for the home or for the wider quality of care.
Visitor infection checks
Visitors were screened for symptoms before entering, with measures to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“All visitors were screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection before being allowed to enter the home.” from the report
Keeping families connected
The home planned visits and used several other ways for people to stay in touch with relatives and friends.
“People were supported to keep in touch with families and visits were planned and well organised to reduce risk and avoid the potential spread of infection.” from the report
Staff infection control training
Staff had specialist training and knew how to put full infection control measures in place if someone developed symptoms.
“Staff had received training from an infection control specialist.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The provider had plans for future outbreaks and reviewed what it had learned from managing the outbreak.
“Contingency plans were in place to manage ongoing or future outbreaks or other events effectively.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visitors screened and how are visits currently organised?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested when there is a suspected infection or outbreak?
- 04How are people supported to understand health information if they use easy-read communication or social stories?
- 05What changes were made after the review of the coronavirus outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated for the wider areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 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, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with minor points about maintenance and recording communication.
This was an unannounced inspection on 06 February 2020. One inspector spoke with three people and five staff, observed how people and staff interacted, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, detailed care plans, good access to healthcare, kind support and activities based on people's choices.
The home supports up to nine people with learning disabilities, sensory impairment, physical disabilities and health care needs. It is larger than recommended by best practice guidance, but inspectors found the service was arranged to support independence, choice and involvement in the community.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with several breaches of regulation. Inspectors found improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, gain skills and take part in community life. Staff used people's preferred communication methods and worked in the least restrictive way.
“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
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors saw enough staff during the visit, with staff able to support people without rushing. Medicines were managed by trained and assessed staff.
“We observed sufficient staffing levels during the inspection and saw staff were unhurried in their interactions with people.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and communication needs. Inspectors saw warm interactions and support that respected privacy, dignity and relationships.
“Interactions between people and staff were kind, caring, positive and warm.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were offered activities inside and outside the home based on their interests. These included shopping, music, arts and crafts, cinema, theatre and bowling.
“We saw others being supported with one-to-one activities of their choice within the home.” from the report
Improvement culture
The provider used audits, feedback and reviews of incidents to identify improvements. Staff were encouraged to share ideas and the manager was described as approachable.
“There was a strong culture within the organisation of shared learning and development.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home has nine beds and is larger than recommended by best practice guidance. Inspectors still rated it Good because they found care was arranged around people's individual needs and independence.
“The service is larger than recommended by best practice guidance.” from the report
Some maintenance needed
minorInspectors noted that some maintenance work was still required to improve the environment. The report does not say that this made the home unsafe.
“However, there was some required maintenance that when completed would enhance the environment.” from the report
Recording non-verbal communication
needs fixingPeople's communication needs were understood, but records did not always consistently capture their non-verbal responses. Ask how this recording is checked now.
“the recording of people's non-verbal communication responses could be more consistently recorded.” from the report
- 01What maintenance work identified at the inspection has been completed, and what remains outstanding?
- 02How do you record and review a person's non-verbal communication and responses to care decisions?
- 03How will my relative be involved in choosing activities, setting goals and reviewing their support plan?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people need support in the home and in the community?
- 05How do you check that medicines, risk assessments and mental capacity decisions remain accurate and up to date?
This was an unannounced planned inspection following the previous Requires Improvement rating and covered all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 2020 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 Caroline House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 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.