CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Coral House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. They found effective use of protective equipment, cleaning, testing, social distancing and safe admission procedures.
- 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, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 April 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures, rather than giving a full assessment of the home.
Inspectors found clear visitor checks, safe admission arrangements, effective use of protective equipment, regular cleaning and infection control audits. They were assured that the home was managing infection risks, testing and social distancing.
The home was rated inspected but not rated overall and for Safe. The report does not give ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led.
Infection prevention
The home had clear procedures for visitors, including health screening, temperature checks and protective equipment. Staff had received relevant infection control training.
“There was a clear procedure for welcoming visitors to the home.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and free from clutter. Frequently touched areas were cleaned often and cleaning schedules were in place.
“The home was visibly clean, free from clutter and robust cleaning schedules were in place.” from the report
Safe admissions
New admissions required a recent negative COVID-19 test and a ten-day isolation period.
“There were strict guidelines in place for accepting new admissions into the home.” from the report
Keeping families connected
Relatives had several ways to stay in contact with people living at the home, including visits and video calls.
“Relatives had a number of ways to stay in contact with their loved one's including face to face visits and video calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now for visitors?
- 02How are new residents tested and supported during any required isolation period?
- 03How often are infection prevention and control audits carried out, and what changes have resulted from them?
- 04How can relatives visit or keep in contact if face-to-face visits are restricted?
- 05When was the home's infection prevention and control policy last updated?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; it did not provide ratings for the other key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 May 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicine recording errors and cleaning issues.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 and 26 September 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files, policies and quality checks, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and happy. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, supported independence and offered choice.
The inspection also found several medicine recording errors after a change in pharmacy packaging. No one was harmed. The porch at the main entrance was dirty and had cobwebs. End of life wishes had started to be discussed, but further conversations were planned.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published on 18 September 2018. Good means the inspectors judged that the home was performing well and meeting the relevant requirements at the time of this inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and professionals consistently described staff as kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors observed staff protecting privacy and speaking with people appropriately.
“People, professionals and their families described the staff as caring, kind and friendly and the atmosphere of the home as relaxed and engaging.” from the report
Personalised activities
Care plans reflected people's likes, dislikes and changing needs. People were supported to access the community and take part in activities linked to their interests.
“People were supported to access the community and participate in activities which matched their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Improved leadership
The report says leadership and teamwork had improved since the previous inspection. A new deputy manager was seen as a positive addition to the management team.
“A new deputy manager had been recruited since the previous inspection. Leadership was visible and promoted good teamwork.” from the report
Medicine recording errors
needs fixingInspectors found several recording errors after medicines changed from blister packs to original packaging. No one was harmed, but the management was taking steps to prevent the errors happening again.
“There had been several recording errors by staff since the pharmacy changes from blister packs to original packaging.” from the report
Dirty entrance porch
minorThe main porch at Coral 1 was dirty and had several cobwebs. The manager said it would be cleaned.
“The porch is full of cobwebs which doesn't set a good first impression” from the report
End of life planning still developing
minorSome discussions and funeral plans were in place, but further discussions with people and families were still planned.
“People's end of life wishes had started to be explored by the service.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the medicine recording errors, and how do you check that records are now accurate?
- 02Have there been any further medicine recording errors since this inspection?
- 03What is the current cleaning routine for the entrance porch and other outside areas?
- 04Have end of life wishes now been discussed with each person and, where appropriate, their family?
- 05How do you support each person to build independence and take part in activities they enjoy?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC key questions and looked at both the accommodation and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 2019 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 Coral House
6 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementResponsive: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 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.