CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Deerhurst
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective infection prevention and control measures, including cleaning, staff training and appropriate use of protective equipment. Relatives could visit in line with government guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had detailed support plans based on their needs and wishes. Staff arranged activities around people's interests and checked whether people had enjoyed them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Previous rating Good; a targeted inspection found safe infection control and person-centred support, but did not rate the service again.
This was a targeted inspection on 26 May 2022. It followed concerns about whether people received person-centred support and could share their views and wishes. The inspection also checked infection prevention and control.
Inspectors reviewed three people's care records, surveys and correspondence with families. They spoke with two people and observed staff supporting them. They found detailed support plans, activities based on people's interests and friendly staff interactions.
Inspectors found effective infection control arrangements, including cleaning, staff training and safe use of protective equipment. They found no evidence to support the concerns that had prompted the inspection.
The service was inspected but not rated for Safe or Responsive. The previous overall rating was Good and remains Good, but this inspection did not examine all areas needed to give a new full rating.
Personalised support
Support plans were detailed, up to date and based on people's wishes. People were involved in decisions about their care and activities.
“People's support plans were detailed and up to date and showed they were involved in decisions about their support and chosen activities.” from the report
Activities
People helped choose activities linked to their interests. Staff checked afterwards whether activities had been enjoyable and recorded their views.
“Staff checked with people after each activity to see if they had enjoyed it, what they liked or didn't like and whether they would like to do it again.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw friendly and encouraging interactions. Staff appeared to know people well, and people seemed relaxed with them.
“We observed staff interaction with two people which was friendly and encouraging.” from the report
Infection control
The home had current infection control procedures, regular cleaning and staff training. Staff were observed using protective equipment according to guidance.
“The provider had effective infection, prevention and control measures to keep people safe.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives or advocates were involved in care decisions. Recent feedback from relatives was very positive.
“Comments from the most recent feedback was either good or excellent.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure the current support plan reflects my relative's wishes, hobbies and preferred activities?
- 02How do you record and act on my relative's views after activities?
- 03What arrangements are currently in place for my relative to maintain relationships and see friends?
- 04What is the current position of the manager's application to register with the Commission?
- 05How are relatives kept informed if infection control or visiting arrangements change?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about person-centred support, activities, people's views and infection control; it did not assess the full key questions, so the previous overall rating of Good remains unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 June 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, November 2019
Deerhurst was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found personalised, caring support, with minor issues about medicine storage and transport.
The inspection took place on 9 October 2019. One inspector spent time with all three people living in the home. They spoke with staff, managers and relatives, and checked care records, staff files, medicines, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
Inspectors found that people received personalised care from kind staff who understood their communication, needs and preferences. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, use local services and take part in activities. Staff managed risks, medicines and safeguarding appropriately.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found a good standard of care across all five areas. The previous inspection in May 2017 also rated the home Good overall and in every area.
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, communication and preferences. Staff followed these plans in practice and supported people to live as independently as possible.
“People living at Deerhurst received personalised support which met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Choice and community life
People were involved in decisions about food, activities and daily plans. They used local shops, cafes and restaurants and took part in outings.
“People living at the service were encouraged and supported to become part of the local community they lived in.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits and feedback to monitor care and safety. Managers were working to make feedback results more meaningful for people living there.
“Effective quality assurance systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided.” from the report
Medicine storage
minorMedicines were managed safely, but the storage location was exposed to changes in temperature and humidity. The manager said this would be discussed with the supplying pharmacist.
“Medicines were stored safely, although following discussions the operations manager said they would discuss the siting of the medicine's storage with the supplying pharmacist.” from the report
Transport for outings
minorThe home had a passenger vehicle, but no staff member could drive it on the inspection day. People therefore used taxis to go out.
“The service had a large passenger carrying vehicle, but on the day of the inspection none of the staff could drive it, so people were supported to take taxis to go out.” from the report
- 01Has the medicine storage location been reviewed with the supplying pharmacist, and where are medicines stored now?
- 02Can staff currently drive the home's passenger vehicle, and how are outings arranged if they cannot?
- 03How are people's communication needs recorded and shared with new or agency staff?
- 04How are people and relatives involved when care plans are reviewed or changed?
- 05What changes have been made to make feedback and questionnaire results more meaningful to people living in the home?
This was a planned inspection of the overall service, covering all five key questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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 Deerhurst
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 January 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
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.