CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Donec Mews
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control measures. They were only somewhat assured about safe admissions and the layout and hygiene of the premises.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Donec Mews: a targeted infection-control inspection found mostly good practice, but admissions paperwork and cleaning methods needed improvement.
This was a targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. Inspectors checked how well the home prevented and controlled infection. The inspection took place on 27 January 2021 and was announced.
Inspectors found many safeguards in place. These included visitor checks, personal protective equipment, hand hygiene, testing, vaccination, cleaning checklists, ventilation and reduced movement of staff between the three houses.
The home was rated inspected but not rated. Inspectors were somewhat assured about safe admissions and the layout and hygiene of the premises. The admissions policy did not match government guidance, and staff were using spray cleaner in some areas. The manager agreed to update the policy and stopped using sprays after the inspection.
Safe visiting
The home had checks and protective measures for visitors. Families were offered garden visits, video calls or telephone calls.
“The provider had acted to make sure people could have visitors safely.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors found that the home followed PPE guidance and provided regular COVID-19 testing for people and staff.
“The provider followed government PPE guidance and practice.” from the report
Community access
People were supported to use the community safely and to make use of outdoor space.
“People made good use of outside space during better weather, supported by staff.” from the report
Staff support
The home reduced staff movement between the three houses and limited agency use. Staff said they felt supported.
“Staff felt well supported by the provider and registered manager.” from the report
Admissions policy
needs fixingThe home followed government guidance on admissions, but its written admissions policy did not reflect that guidance. The manager said it would be updated.
“Although the provider followed government guidance on admissions, their admissions policy did not reflect this guidance.” from the report
Cleaning sprays
needs fixingStaff were using spray cleaner in some areas. Inspectors advised that this did not follow the cleaning guidance, and the home stopped using sprays after the inspection.
“Staff were using a spray cleaner in some areas to prevent the spread of COVID-19.” from the report
- 01Has the admissions policy now been updated to match government guidance?
- 02What cleaning products and methods are staff using now, and how are these checked?
- 03How are visitors currently screened and supported to visit safely?
- 04How does the home manage COVID-19 testing, personal protective equipment and infection outbreaks?
- 05How are people supported to access the community and use outdoor space safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; it did not provide ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 11 and 13 September 2018 without giving notice. They spoke with staff, managers and relatives, observed care, and reviewed care plans, recruitment records and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training and detailed personal care plans.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff supported people to make choices, stay independent, access healthcare and take part in activities they enjoyed.
At the previous inspection, the provider had breached rules about consent and good governance. Inspectors found that the required improvements had been made and sustained.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines records had no gaps, storage was safe and staff's medicine skills were checked regularly.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans recorded people's routines, preferences, communication and interests in detail. Staff understood how each person communicated and what support they needed.
“Assessments, risk assessments and care plans were person centred and written to a high standard” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built trusting relationships and responded quickly when people were distressed or uncomfortable. People were treated with dignity and encouraged to remain independent.
“People were supported by staff who demonstrated kindness, compassion and a genuine interest in the people they supported.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
People could take part in activities inside and outside the home, including cooking, gardening, swimming, art and trips. The home also supported cultural and religious needs.
“People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities both within the home and externally.” from the report
Improvements sustained
The provider had addressed the two areas of legal non-compliance identified at the previous inspection. Inspectors found that the improvements had continued.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made and sustained the required improvements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you update the detailed support plan to reflect my relative's communication methods, routines and preferences?
- 02What specific training would staff have for my relative's health conditions or complex needs?
- 03How do you make sure mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions are completed when a decision may restrict someone's freedom?
- 04If agency staff are needed, how do you make sure they know my relative and their support needs?
- 05How would you respond if my relative became distressed during a health appointment or another activity?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five areas, and it also checked whether improvements had been made after breaches identified at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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 Donec Mews
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 September 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.