CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Durlands Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staffing levels were safe, medicines were managed safely and risk assessments supported people while promoting their independence. The medicines staff signature list was not up to date.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Mental capacity assessments were not always current or recorded correctly, and there was no clear overview of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications. Some staff had not received supervision as regularly as intended.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were observed to be happy and relaxed with staff. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported their choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's routines, communication methods, interests and health needs. People were supported with activities of their choice, including community trips and holidays.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality checks, staff meetings and an action plan for identified improvements. Relatives said communication could be more effective, and the system for checking that staff had read important information was not regularly monitored.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the service was not consistently effective because mental capacity records and staff supervision needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 9 October 2018. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines, complaints, incidents, training and quality checks.
People were found to be safe, treated kindly and supported by a consistent staff team. Care plans were personal and supported people's health, choices, independence and activities.
The main weaknesses were in the way mental capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards information was recorded and monitored. Some staff had not received supervision as regularly as planned. The overall rating stayed Good, but Effective was rated Requires Improvement.
Consistent staffing
Staffing levels were safe and relatives valued the stable team. Staff knew people's needs and routines well.
“The consistent staff team is a real positive.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared happy and relaxed with staff. Staff respected people's dignity, choices and preferred ways of spending time.
“We observed that people were happy and relaxed in the presence of staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's backgrounds, routines, communication methods and interests. People were supported to take part in activities they chose.
“Care records were person centred. They gave information on people's background, interests and relationships that were important to them.” from the report
Safe support and risk management
Medicines, risks, fire safety and infection control were checked. Staff were trained to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
“Individual risk assessments identified how to support people safely whilst maximising people's independence.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome capacity assessments were outdated and combined unrelated decisions. Best-interest decisions were not always recorded as required.
“Capacity assessments in people's care records were outdated and multiple non-related decisions were considered together.” from the report
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards tracking
needs fixingThe home could not easily see the status of people's authorisations. One application had not been submitted in time, although applications for everyone had later been submitted.
“There was no clear overview in place to see the status of people's DoLS and the provider could not easily locate this information.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingThe supervision records were not well organised. Some staff had not received supervision as often as the home intended.
“some staff had not received supervision as frequently as the service intended” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorRelatives said communication had declined and could be improved. The home said it would review this.
“the feedback we received was that communication could be more effective.” from the report
Medicines records
minorMedicines were managed safely, but the staff signature list was not up to date.
“However, the staff signature list was not up to date” from the report
- 01How do you now keep mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions up to date for each person?
- 02How do you track each person's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application and renewal dates?
- 03How often does each staff member receive supervision, and how do you check that this happens?
- 04What changes have you made to improve communication with relatives?
- 05How do you check that staff have read important updates in the read and sign folder?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, and the overall rating remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 November 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 Durlands Road
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 June 2014.
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.