CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Colbury House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and inspectors found safeguarding, staffing, recruitment, risk management, medicines and emergency arrangements were in place. Some people and relatives reported delays in call bell responses, although staff responded promptly during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and recorded, staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with food, healthcare and consent. Inspectors found one missing best-interest decision for a lap belt and action was taken immediately.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors observed warm interactions and found staff knew people's personal likes, dislikes and preferred names.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and communication with relatives and professionals was generally good. Inspectors found one activity did not offer much social interaction, and some people were not always aware of planned activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about management. The home had audits, meetings, handovers and systems for responding to concerns and improving care.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some concerns about staffing response times and activities.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 and 27 July 2022. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines and had their health, food and personal care needs supported. Staff were described as caring and knowledgeable, and care plans gave detailed information about people's preferences.
There were some areas needing attention. Some people and relatives said call bells were sometimes answered slowly or staff were hard to find. Inspectors also found that one activity was not very engaging. Minor problems with some medicines records, furniture and a shower room were raised and action was taken or promised during the inspection.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered service. The previous provider's service had been rated Requires Improvement in May 2020.
People felt safe
People and relatives generally said they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and recruitment checks were completed.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm, reassuring interactions. Staff knew people as individuals and respected their privacy, dignity and choices.
“We observed caring interactions with staff who responded to people in a warm and reassuring way.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, routines, preferences and how they wanted to be supported.
“Care plans provided comprehensive information about how people wished to receive care and support.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff said managers were approachable and supportive. Audits and other systems were used to monitor care and act on problems.
“There were a number of systems and processes in place for monitoring the quality of care.” from the report
Call bell response times
needs fixingFeedback about staffing was mixed. Some people said they sometimes had to look for staff or wait for call bells to be answered, although inspectors saw staff respond promptly during the visit.
“Sometimes there's not enough. You have to go and look for them.” from the report
Activities were not always engaging
minorOne activity did not seem to engage many people or help them socialise. A relative also said some people missed activities because they did not know they were happening.
“The game did not provide an opportunity for people to socialise.” from the report
Some records needed strengthening
minorSome topical medicines records did not say where medicines should be applied. The home changed these records immediately after inspectors raised the issue.
“for some records more information was required for example where to apply.” from the report
Minor premises issues
minorInspectors found stains on a couple of chairs and a shower fitting that could allow water inside. The provider said these issues would be addressed.
“There were spaces for water to creep inside we pointed this to the deputy manager and provider.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells usually answered, and how do you check for delays?
- 02How do you make sure activities suit each person's interests and that people know what is planned?
- 03Have the topical medicines records been fully updated to show where each medicine should be applied?
- 04Have the stained chairs and the shower fitting been repaired or replaced?
- 05What improvements have been completed since the previous provider was rated Requires Improvement?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 August 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.
Every inspection of Colbury House
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 May 2021.
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.