CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dibden View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, individual risks and medicines, and inspectors found enough staff and suitable recruitment checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, supervision and knowledge needed for their roles. People were supported with consent, food and health care, and the home was meeting Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were offered choices about daily life, and their privacy, dignity, independence and family contact were supported.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised and records gave clear guidance about each person's needs and goals. People were supported with activities, education, community life, bereavement and changing health or emotional needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and supportive management style, a stable staff group and regular quality checks. Inspectors found that identified shortfalls were acted on.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Dibden View was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and well-led care, with Outstanding responsiveness to people's individual needs.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 October 2017. One inspector spoke with three people living at the home, observed care, and spoke with the manager and three support staff. They also checked care records for two people and records about medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
Inspectors found that people were safe and that risks, medicines, finances and emergency arrangements were managed properly. Staff had suitable checks and training, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. People's health, food and fluid needs were supported, and staff followed the rules about consent and decisions made in people's best interests.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans were detailed and regularly updated. The home was rated Outstanding for being responsive because support was highly personalised, people were helped to follow their interests, and staff responded well to changes in people's needs. The other four areas were rated Good.
Safe support
Staff understood people's individual risks and used risk assessments and reviews to help keep people safe.
“People's risks were well managed, monitored and regularly reviewed to help keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff spending unhurried time with people, offering choices and protecting their privacy and dignity.
“We witnessed numerous examples of staff providing support with compassion and kindness.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans were detailed, current and based on each person's background, preferences, health and support needs.
“People received a personalised service that met their needs.” from the report
Strong response to individual needs
People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities inside and outside the home, including education and community activities.
“The service was outstanding in providing responsive support.” from the report
Good leadership
The home had a stable staff team, supportive managers and regular checks on care, medicines, finances, health and safety.
“The culture of the service was open, honest and caring and fully focused on people's individual needs.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's individual mental health risks, including any risk of self-harm?
- 02How are families involved in care plan reviews and best-interest decisions if a person cannot make a particular decision?
- 03How would you support my relative to take part in activities, education or community life based on their own interests?
- 04How are medicines managed if a person wants to self-administer, and how is this ability reviewed?
- 05What were the three complaints made since registration, and what was done in response?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, based on observations, conversations and records checked on 10 October 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 2017 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 Dibden View
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2017Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2016.
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.