CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Denewood House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, arranged testing, managed visiting and admissions, and maintained hygiene. The home was not aware of guidance on using agency staff during the pandemic.
- 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls, with some guidance on agency staff still needed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 12 March 2021. Inspectors looked at how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections. The inspection did not give an overall quality rating.
Inspectors found the home clean and free from clutter. Staff had access to protective equipment, wore masks, and used full protective equipment for personal care. People and staff were tested regularly, and staff received extra infection-control training.
The home had arrangements for safe visits, video calls and telephone calls. It also continued activities and used its garden and a visiting pod to help people keep in contact with relatives.
Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements. However, the home was not aware of guidance about using agency staff during the pandemic. Inspectors signposted the provider to resources to improve its planning.
Clean environment
The home was clean and free from clutter. It had daily cleaning schedules and handwashing guidance throughout the building.
“The service was free from clutter and clean. There were cleaning schedules in place for day to day cleaning.” from the report
Use of protective equipment
Staff wore masks at work and used full protective equipment for personal care and when someone was self-isolating.
“Staff wore face masks at all times whilst at work. Staff wore full PPE when providing personal care” from the report
Testing and training
People and staff were tested regularly. Staff also received extra training about infection prevention and COVID-19.
“The service participated in the whole home testing programme, this meant people using the service were tested for Covid-19 every 28 days.” from the report
Family contact
The home provided socially distanced garden and window visits, a visiting pod, video calls and telephone calls.
“The service had installed a visiting pod in the garden to facilitate visits during the winter.” from the report
Agency staff guidance
needs fixingThe home was not aware of guidance about using agency staff during the pandemic. Inspectors signposted the provider to workplace planning resources.
“The service was not aware of guidance on the use of agency staff during the pandemic.” from the report
- 01What action have you taken after inspectors said you were not aware of guidance on using agency staff during the pandemic?
- 02How are infection prevention and control audits completed, and how are any shortfalls followed up?
- 03How do you currently arrange visits and contact with relatives?
- 04How often are people living here and staff tested for infections now?
- 05What infection-control checks are used when someone is admitted from a health or social care service?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 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, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicine recording improvements still needed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 October 2018. The inspector reviewed care records, medicines, staff files, training, complaints and safety checks. They also spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a health professional, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines systems, clean premises and good support with risks such as falls and skin damage.
People were involved in their care and choices. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and care plans, activities, food and healthcare were tailored to people's needs. The home had an open management culture and effective quality checks.
The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns, but noted that records for time-specific medicines were due to be improved.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were reviewed monthly and were sufficient to meet people's needs.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and professionals described staff as caring. Inspectors saw staff protect dignity, privacy and independence.
“We observed staff interacting with people in a caring and compassionate manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, history and goals. Staff responded when people's health or care needs changed.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Good management checks
The home had regular audits, spot checks and management reviews. Inspectors found these led to prompt action and service improvements.
“Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place and up to date.” from the report
Medicine recording
needs fixingThe provider said the way time-specific medicines were recorded needed improvement. No one at the inspection was prescribed time-critical medicines, so this was an area to follow up.
“The provider told us that improvements to the way they recorded time specific medicines would be made” from the report
Some end of life information awaited
minorThe home knew people's end of life preferences, but some further information from relatives was still awaited.
“The service was awaiting some further information from relatives regarding end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to recording time-specific or time-critical medicines since this inspection?
- 02How do you check that medicine administration records are complete and accurate?
- 03Have all residents' end of life wishes, including spiritual and cultural wishes, now been recorded?
- 04How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs change?
- 05What activities are currently available, and how are residents involved in choosing them?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home environment; the overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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 Denewood House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.