CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Dashwood Manor
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines, including controlled drugs, were not always managed safely or given at the prescribed time. Some falls causing injury were not reported when they should have been, and some risk records gave conflicting instructions.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home did not always complete the required capacity and best-interest decisions. Staff also lacked training in some conditions affecting people at the home, and oral care records and support had gaps.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives gave positive feedback. Inspectors saw staff being patient, compassionate and respectful, and supporting people as individuals.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people’s preferences, histories and routines. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication needs and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The manager was open and acted on the inspection findings, but audits did not identify important problems with medicines, records, falls reporting and mental capacity decisions.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but serious problems with medicines, consent and oversight.
This was the home’s first inspection. It was unannounced. Inspectors visited on 13 and 14 March 2023, and reviewed records, medicines, meals, staff interactions and the home environment. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a visiting professional.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Inspectors found medicines were not always stored or given safely. Records about risks and care were sometimes inconsistent. The home did not always follow the law when checking people’s capacity and making decisions for them.
Inspectors found staff were kind and respectful. People had personalised care plans, activities and support to maintain relationships. The provider must send CQC an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw staff spending meaningful time with people and responding to requests.
“People were well treated and supported. We observed positive interactions between staff and people, and saw staff spending time with people in a meaningful way.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people’s likes, dislikes, histories and routines. Staff were described as knowing people well.
“Care plans were personalised and contained information about people's like and dislikes, personal histories, and routines.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in daily activities and events, use different facilities and maintain contact with family and friends.
“Activity coordinators arranged and conducted planned activities every day for people.” from the report
Food and nutrition support
The home monitored weight, food and fluids for people at risk, and staff supported people to eat safely and with dignity.
“Where people required support from staff to eat their meals safely, we observed support was provided appropriately and with dignity.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousMedicines, including controlled drugs, were not always stored or given as required. Some time-sensitive medicines were not administered as prescribed, and medicine records and checks were incomplete.
“The provider did not always manage medicines, including controlled drugs according to guidance and legislation.” from the report
Consent and capacity decisions
seriousThe home did not always complete decision-specific capacity assessments or best-interest decisions for medicines, care, treatment and hourly welfare checks.
“The provider did not always ensure decision specific mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were carried out in relation to people's medicines, the provider was not following the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Conflicting risk information
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments gave different instructions about people’s needs. This could make it harder for staff to provide consistent care.
“Some of the records were inconsistent in the guidance they provided to staff.” from the report
Oral care gaps
needs fixingCare plans did not always follow national oral hygiene guidance. Inspectors found gaps in daily oral care and mixed feedback about access to dental care.
“Care plans did not always reflect national guidance for oral hygiene and gaps were found with daily oral care.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine storage, administration, time-sensitive medicines and controlled drugs since the inspection?
- 02How do you now make and record capacity assessments and best-interest decisions for medicines, care, treatment and welfare checks?
- 03How are conflicting risk assessments and care plans checked and corrected before staff use them?
- 04What has changed in daily oral care and access to dental services?
- 05What evidence can you show that the action plan has been completed and that audits now find problems promptly?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the report says this was the home’s first inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 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.
Every inspection of Dashwood Manor
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 September 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.