CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Chalgrove Care and Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Chalgrove Care and Nursing Home is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found gaps in risk management and quality checks, with breaches of two regulations.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 July 2022. Three inspectors spoke with people, a relative, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The main concern was that risks were not always assessed or managed properly. This included risks linked to choking, dehydration, skin damage and smoking. Inspectors found no evidence that people had been harmed, but said people were at increased risk of harm. Quality checks had also failed to identify these problems.
There were positive findings too. People said they felt safe, medicines were managed safely, staffing met people's needs and infection control was effective. The home was rated Good for being responsive. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, changing the overall rating from Good at the previous inspection.
Medicines and infection control
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. They were also assured that infection risks were being managed effectively.
“People had their medicines managed safely and were protected from avoidable infection.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Staff recruitment checks were completed safely. Inspectors found enough staff with suitable skills and experience to meet people's needs.
“People were supported by enough staff with the right skills and experience to meet their care and support needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care reflected people's preferences, lives and communication needs. Activities were linked to people's interests, culture and hobbies.
“People received person centred care that reflected their care needs, likes, dislikes and lifestyle choices.” from the report
Complaints and communication
People and families knew how to raise concerns. Records showed that complaints were investigated and responses followed the home's policy.
“A complaints policy was in place and had been shared with people and their families.” from the report
Risks were not consistently managed
seriousSome care plans did not contain enough information about risks, and agreed actions were not always completed. Examples included missed repositioning, unmet fluid targets and unclear dietary guidance for people at risk of choking.
“Risks to people had not always been assessed, care plans did not always include details of risks to people, and actions in place to mitigate identified risks had not always been taken.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not identify the shortfalls in risk management. The provider had to improve its checks and provide CQC with an action plan.
“Quality assurance processes had not been successful in identifying shortfalls in the management of risks to people.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to make sure choking, dehydration, skin damage and smoking risks are assessed and reviewed?
- 02How do you check that repositioning plans and fluid targets are completed every time?
- 03How do catering staff receive and update information about people's current swallowing and dietary plans?
- 04What actions were included in the improvement plan sent to CQC, and how will families be told about progress?
- 05How often are care records and risk-management checks now reviewed by managers?
This was a focused inspection prompted by a review of information held by CQC, covering Safe and Well-led; the Good Responsive rating was carried over from the last inspection, and no ratings were given for Effective or Caring. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 September 2022 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, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-planned care, with some reminders needed about privacy, activities and reporting faults.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 5 and 7 December 2017. The first day was unannounced. It was brought forward because CQC received concerns about staffing levels.
Inspectors spoke with people, visitors, health professionals, managers and staff. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and other management records.
They found that people were protected from abuse, medicines and risks were managed safely, and staffing was usually enough. Care plans were personalised and up to date. People were treated kindly, supported with food, drink and health needs, and involved in decisions.
The overall rating was Good. Each of the five areas was also rated Good. Problems found at the October 2016 inspection had been addressed, although inspectors recommended reinforcing privacy and dignity responsibilities.
Improved care planning
Care plans were personalised, detailed and regularly reviewed. Inspectors found that earlier problems with planning and record keeping had been addressed.
“Care plans were personalised and contained information about the person's preferences and choices.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as caring and helpful. Inspectors observed friendly, kind and respectful interactions.
“The interactions we observed were friendly, kind and respectful.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Instructions for applying skin creams were clear and there were no unexplained gaps in the charts.
“Peoples' medicines were managed and administered safely.” from the report
Good management checks
The home used audits, feedback and information from earlier inspections to make improvements.
“Management and governance arrangements were robust and had brought about improvements.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
needs fixingOn some occasions, staff did not fully protect privacy during personal care or when speaking about assistance. CQC recommended reminding and reinforcing these responsibilities.
“We recommend the service reminds and reinforces to staff the importance of always upholding people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Activities were reduced
needs fixingSome people said there was not enough to do. Fewer activities were being provided because the activities coordinator had left and a replacement had not yet started.
“Fewer activities were being provided than usual because the previous activities coordinator had left and the new one had yet to start work.” from the report
Equipment faults not reported promptly
needs fixingStaff had not reported a faulty bed rail that would not stay up. Managers reminded staff that faults must be reported immediately.
“However, staff had not reported to nurses or managers a faulty bed rail that would not stay up by itself.” from the report
Recruitment vacancies
minorStaffing was usually sufficient, but recruitment remained challenging and there were two day and one night full-time equivalent vacancies.
“There were currently two day and one night full time equivalent vacancies.” from the report
- 01How many care and nursing vacancies are there now, and how do you make sure staffing remains sufficient when people’s needs increase?
- 02What activities are currently available, and how do you match them to each person's interests?
- 03How do you check that staff protect privacy and dignity during personal care?
- 04How are equipment faults, such as bed rail problems, reported and checked promptly?
- 05Who is currently managing the home, and how are families kept informed during management changes?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering the premises and care provided, with all five ratings assessed; the earlier inspection findings and a previous focused inspection were also reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 January 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.
Every inspection of Chalgrove Care and Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- September 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Chalgrove Care and Nursing Home →
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Chalgrove Care and Nursing Home →
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 March 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
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.