CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Minehead Limited
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff responded promptly to requests for help. Medicines were generally managed safely, but there were some supply problems.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some people with complex needs may not have received prompt and appropriate support. Assessments, care records, mealtime arrangements and links with outside professionals also needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Inspectors observed pleasant and kind interactions between people and staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Inspectors reported limited opportunities for suitable social stimulation and activities.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and clinical oversight were inconsistent. Quality monitoring identified problems and the provider was working on improvements, but there was no senior clinical staff member overseeing people's needs.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found people were safe and treated kindly, but clinical support, personalised care and management needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 January and 1 February 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led, following concerns about medicines and staff skills for people with complex needs. They spoke with people, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked medicines, care plans, recruitment files and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People felt safe, staff were kind, staffing levels were adequate, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were generally given as prescribed. There were some medicines supply problems, but managers were working with the pharmacy and GP surgery to improve this.
Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. There was no permanent clinical lead, some people did not receive prompt specialist support, and pre-admission assessments and care records were not always complete. People also had limited opportunities for suitable activities and social contact, although the provider had started making changes.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in May 2021, to Requires Improvement. The caring and responsive questions were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff were available when help was needed. Recruitment checks and building safety checks were also in place.
“People felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Kind staff
Inspectors saw pleasant interactions and found that staff generally treated people as individuals.
“People received kind and compassionate care from a friendly staff team.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider's audits identified areas needing improvement, including medicines, dementia-friendly surroundings and care planning.
“This showed that monitoring systems were effective and used to drive improvements.” from the report
Limited clinical oversight
needs fixingThere was no clinical lead at the home. A nurse from another part of the business was providing temporary, part-time support, which meant some people may not have received prompt support.
“There was no clinical lead at the home and therefore a lack of clinical support for staff and people when they had complex needs.” from the report
Incomplete assessments and records
needs fixingSome assessments did not cover social needs or outside healthcare support. Care records and risk assessments were not always up to date or detailed enough.
“People's care records were not always up to date and robust.” from the report
Specialist support was not consistent
needs fixingSome people had difficulty accessing specialist health professionals, particularly when they had moved from another county. This meant their care needs were not always met.
“This meant people did not always receive the care and support they needed.” from the report
Limited activities and social contact
needs fixingSome people had few opportunities for activities suited to their age and needs, or to access the local community.
“One person commented they often felt "Quite isolated.” from the report
Dignity at mealtimes
minorPeople living with dementia were all using plastic plates and cups without individual assessments. Pureed meals were also poorly presented on the first inspection day.
“People's dignity was not always promoted at mealtimes.” from the report
- 01Who now provides senior clinical oversight, and how is this person involved in assessing new and existing residents?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's specialist healthcare needs are agreed and recorded before they move in?
- 03What activities, one-to-one support and community visits would be available for my relative?
- 04Have all care plans and risk assessments been transferred and updated on the new electronic system?
- 05What has changed to prevent medicines supply problems from happening again?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 2023 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, May 2021
Eastleigh Care Homes - Minehead Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with some improvement needed in time-critical medicines.
This was a focused inspection on 28 April 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led, including infection control. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care, and checked care plans, recruitment, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe equipment and good infection control. People appeared comfortable, and staff responded promptly when help was needed. The inspection found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concerns that had led to the inspection.
There was one medicines shortfall. Some time-critical medicines were not always given as prescribed, and the medicines audits did not check this specifically. The inspectors recommended improving these checks. The overall Good rating stayed the same, partly because ratings for the other three areas were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People received help promptly.
“There were adequate numbers of staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Risk management
The home used individual risk assessments and suitable equipment to reduce risks, including risks linked to pressure damage and the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Risk assessments were used to ensure people received care and support according to their individual needs.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention measures, including PPE, testing, visits and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Open management
The provider used audits, shared shortfalls and planned improvements. Relatives and staff were kept informed and felt able to raise concerns.
“The provider was clear about their role and regulatory requirements.” from the report
Time-critical medicines
needs fixingSome time-critical medicines were not given as prescribed. The regular medicines audits did not include checks on this, so the provider was asked to improve its monitoring.
“However, on occasion, we found time critical medicines were not given as prescribed.” from the report
Safeguarding training
minorNot all newly appointed staff had completed formal safeguarding training at the time of the inspection. Staff spoken with said they were confident that concerns would be acted on.
“Not all newly appointed staff had received formal safeguarding training.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThe home did not have a registered manager during the inspection. A new manager had been appointed but had not yet started, while the nominated individual oversaw the home.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure time-critical medicines are given at the prescribed time?
- 02What checks are in place to confirm that all new staff complete safeguarding training?
- 03Has the new manager now started, and are they registered with the Care Quality Commission?
- 04What are the current ratings and findings for Effective, Caring and Responsive care?
- 05How are relatives told about changes to care, medicines or infection control arrangements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 May 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.
Every inspection of Minehead Limited
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 October 2013.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.