CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dorset House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were given as prescribed, safeguarding systems were understood, and infection prevention arrangements were suitable. Staffing was generally sufficient, although absence sometimes affected staffing levels.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors reported that people and relatives described staff as caring and responsive.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors found that staff knew people well and responded to changes in their needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, clear staff responsibilities, an open management approach and good involvement of people, relatives and staff in the home.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Dorset House was rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well managed, although staffing was sometimes affected by short-notice absence.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 August 2022. One inspector and a medicines inspector spoke with seven people, five relatives and 13 staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good and well-led was rated Good. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staff understood safeguarding, and infection control arrangements were suitable.
People and relatives described the care as safe, caring and responsive. The home had enough staff to meet people's needs, although staffing levels were sometimes affected by short-notice absence and wider recruitment difficulties.
The Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published in February 2020. The inspection was part of a random check of services already rated Good or Outstanding.
Risk management
People had detailed risk assessments, which were reviewed monthly or when their needs changed. Staff discussed risks during handovers and meetings.
“Risk assessments were detailed; staff understood the risks and knew people well.” from the report
Safe medicines
Records showed that people received their medicines correctly. Staff were trained and had competency checks, and regular audits were completed.
“These records showed that people were given their medicines correctly in the way prescribed for them.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home recorded and reviewed accidents and incidents. Lessons were shared with staff and across other homes run by the provider.
“Accidents were recorded and analysed, the outcomes were used to reduce the likelihood of the accident or incident happening again.” from the report
Management and quality checks
Inspectors found regular audits with action plans that were followed up. Staff said managers were approachable and involved them in improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were robust and effective in managing the risks to the quality of the service.” from the report
Staffing affected by absence
needs fixingThe home was still recruiting and staffing levels were sometimes affected by short-notice and unplanned absence. Inspectors nevertheless found there were enough staff on duty at the time of inspection.
“However, due to short notice and unplanned absence staffing levels were affected at times.” from the report
- 01How do you maintain safe staffing levels when there is short-notice or unplanned absence?
- 02How many permanent staff and regular agency staff currently work in the home?
- 03How are risk assessments updated when a person's health or needs change?
- 04How will the home show us that actions from audits and incident reviews have been completed?
- 05How are relatives kept informed when there is a change in a person's health, care or medicines?
This inspection focused on the Safe and well-led key questions, including infection prevention and control; the report does not give separate ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 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 2020
Dorset House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control practices.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 October 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found clear arrangements for visitors, including health checks, masks, hand sanitiser and designated areas for putting on and removing protective equipment. The home was clean, and frequently touched areas were cleaned often.
The home had processes for safe admissions, testing and isolation. It also had an infection control lead and risk assessments for people and staff.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a standard rating for the five questions.
Visitor safety
The home had a clear process for welcoming planned visitors, with health checks, protective equipment and hand sanitiser available.
“There was a clear procedure in place to welcome pre-arranged visitors to the home, face masks available and hand sanitisers at the entrance.” from the report
Cleaning
The home was clean and tidy. Cleaning schedules were in place, and frequently touched areas were cleaned several times a day.
“Communal areas and high use touch points such as door handles, and handrails were cleaned frequently throughout the day.” from the report
Safe admissions
There was a process for testing people before and after admission, followed by a period of isolation in line with government guidance.
“There was an agreed admissions process in place which involved testing before and after admission with a period of isolation in line with current government guidelines.” from the report
Infection control leadership
An infection control lead supported staff with hand washing and carried out regular checks.
“The home had an infection control lead to support and guide with correct hand washing techniques and made regular checks.” from the report
Routine testing had not started for residents
minorRoutine testing for staff had started, but testing for people living at the home had not yet begun at the time of inspection. The report says this was planned for the following month.
“The home had started routine testing for staff the week before our inspection but had not undertaken routine testing for people living at Dorset House, this was planned to start in the upcoming month.” from the report
- 01Has routine testing for people living at the home now started, and how often is it carried out?
- 02How are visitors currently screened, and what protective equipment and hand sanitiser are available?
- 03How are new admissions tested and supported during any required isolation period?
- 04How often are communal areas and frequently touched surfaces cleaned?
- 05Who is the infection control lead, and how are staff supported and checked on hand washing?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated on the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 2020 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 Dorset House
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 2010.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.