CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dimensions 123 Calmore Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed through testing, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and visiting arrangements. They also noted widespread use of agency staff and some maintenance work that was still needed.
- 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?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, but agency staffing and some maintenance needed attention.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 28 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The home had good systems for testing, personal protective equipment, hand hygiene, social distancing and visits. People were supported to keep taking part in community activities where possible, and staff supported individual choices about vaccination.
Inspectors found that agency staff were widely used and that the provider was trying to recruit six more full-time support staff. They also found that flooring in both laundries was not fully sealed, although they said this had not affected people.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a new overall rating or a rated score for Safe.
Infection control
Staff followed entry checks, testing, hand hygiene and PPE procedures. People were supported to manage infection risks while continuing activities and visits where possible.
“Staff were familiar with entry requirements and we were asked to provide evidence of a lateral flow device (LFD) test and our COVID-19 passport.” from the report
Managing the outbreak
During the COVID-19 outbreak, people were isolated in their rooms and allocated particular bathrooms. Extra cleaning was used to reduce risks.
“While testing positive, social distancing in the service had been maintained and people were isolated in their rooms.” from the report
Respecting choices
The home used a capacity assessment and best-interest decision when one person did not want vaccination. This avoided causing them further distress.
“This minimised distress for them and supported the choice they were clearly making.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visits were brought back gradually and followed current arrangements, including testing, vaccination checks and temperature checks.
“We were assured that people, friends and relatives were safely supported during visits.” from the report
Use of agency staff
needs fixingAgency staff were widely used because there were many commissioned hours to cover. The provider was recruiting six additional full-time support staff.
“Agency staff were widely used at 123 Calmore Road as there were a number of commissioned hours to meet” from the report
Laundry flooring
minorBoth laundries had flooring that was not fully sealed. Inspectors said this did not affect people, but asked the provider to address it to improve infection control.
“For example, both laundries had flooring that was not fully sealed.” from the report
- 01How many of the six additional full-time support staff have now been recruited?
- 02How much agency staff is currently being used, and how does the home make sure agency staff know each person's needs?
- 03Has the flooring in both laundries been fully sealed since the inspection?
- 04What infection control arrangements are currently used for visits and community activities?
- 05How are people supported to make choices about COVID-19 vaccination and other health decisions?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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, April 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found inconsistent management, high staff turnover and gaps in activities and staff support.
This was an unannounced inspection over 18 and 19 March 2019. One inspector and one inspection manager spoke with staff, a relative and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment records, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home provided personal care for three people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors rated Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good. They found people were generally safe, supported with health and food, treated with dignity and helped to make choices.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Management had changed several times, staff turnover and sickness were high, and staff meetings and supervisions had not happened as planned. A new management team had started shortly before the inspection and staff morale appeared to be improving.
Safeguarding and risk management
Staff had safeguarding training and understood how to raise concerns. Risks relating to health, behaviour, the environment and mobility were assessed and actions were taken to reduce them.
“Staff were trained in safeguarding and received annual updates to their training.” from the report
Personalised support
People's rooms and living spaces reflected their belongings, interests and preferences. Staff also understood people's individual ways of communicating.
“People had detailed support plans that described their needs, wishes and preferences.” from the report
Support with health and medicines
People were supported to see GPs, dentists and other professionals. Medicines records checked during the inspection were complete and medicine quantities matched the audits.
“Medicines were safely managed. We checked medicines in one of the two bungalows and saw that medicine administration records (MAR's) were correctly completed without any missed signatures” from the report
High staff turnover
needs fixingStaff turnover was high and experienced staff were due to leave. This could make it harder for the home to provide consistent support, especially for people with complex communication or behavioural needs.
“Staff turnover was high and more staff were leaving in the weeks following our inspection.” from the report
Inconsistent management and staff support
needs fixingManagement had changed several times and staff had felt unsettled and unsupported. Staff supervisions and monthly meetings had not taken place as planned.
“There had been no permanent, effective, long-term management within the service for some months.” from the report
People were sometimes unoccupied
needs fixingThe activities programme was limited. Inspectors saw periods when staff were sitting with a person but were not trying to involve them in an activity.
“There was a lot of time during the day that they were unoccupied” from the report
Medicines cabinet condition
minorThe cabinet was secure, but chipped paint had left bare metal that could harbour bacteria. The provider was considering replacing it.
“The medicines cabinet was in poor condition, though secure, some of the coating had worn away and there were bare metal areas which may harbour bacteria.” from the report
Respect and dignity
needs fixingMost staff were respectful, but inspectors saw one person discussed negatively in front of them and another person told to make less noise in their own home.
“We saw one staff member discuss one person when seated in a communal area with them.” from the report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to reduce staff turnover and improve staff morale?
- 02Are staff supervisions and monthly staff meetings now happening as planned?
- 03What fuller in-house activities are now available, and how do you prevent people being left unoccupied?
- 04Has the medicines cabinet been replaced, and how are medicine temperatures and stock levels monitored?
- 05Are all Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations current?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 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 Dimensions 123 Calmore Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 2012.
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.