CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Raleigh Mead Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, risk assessments and infection control were found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The rating from the previous comprehensive inspection was used in the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Inspectors did observe kindness, respect and dignity, but no current rating was given here.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The rating from the previous comprehensive inspection was used in the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clearer audits and oversight, and staff described improved morale and an inclusive management approach.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Eastleigh Care Homes - Raleigh Mead Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 January 2021. Inspectors looked mainly at safety and how well the home was managed, including infection control. They spoke with staff, people living in the home, relatives and healthcare professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and quality records.
Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, respect and dignity. Medicines were being given safely, staff were suitably recruited and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Infection control arrangements, including personal protective equipment and visiting arrangements, were also found to be suitable.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Problems with medicines, mattress checks and quality monitoring had been addressed, and the previous legal breaches had been met. The overall rating was Good, as were the Safe and Well-led ratings.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff treating people with kindness, respect and dignity. Staff understood people's individual needs.
“Our observations showed us people were being treated with kindness, respect and dignity.” from the report
Safer medicines
Medicine records, storage, staff training and checks had improved. People received medicines as prescribed.
“People received their medicines safely and in the way prescribed for them.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff with suitable skills, and recruitment checks were in place to protect people from unsuitable staff.
“There were sufficient staff with the right skills and support to provide safe and effective care to people.” from the report
Improved management
Quality audits had been updated and there was clearer oversight. Staff reported better morale and team spirit under the new manager.
“At this inspection we found audits had been updated and there was clearer overall oversight of the service.” from the report
Infection control
The home had suitable arrangements for personal protective equipment, testing, social distancing and managing possible outbreaks. It also had a separate visiting hub.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
One medicine recording issue
minorFor one person, the site of a medicine patch was not recorded on a few occasions, although the patch was applied at the correct time. The home had identified this and taken action.
“For one person we found a few occasions where the patch had been applied at the correct time, but the site had not been recorded.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicine patch application sites are recorded every time?
- 02What is the progress of the new manager's CQC registration?
- 03How often are medicines, falls, equipment and care records audited, and how are actions followed up?
- 04How are the daily checks of specialist mattress settings recorded and reviewed?
- 05How are families supported with visits and updates if coronavirus restrictions return?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 February 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, February 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care, but medicine safety and management checks were not reliable.
Inspectors visited on three days in November 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and professionals. They also observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
People were generally treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found good support with meals, healthcare, activities and individual care. Staff worked well with health and social care professionals, and some people made progress towards greater independence or returning home.
There were important safety problems. Expired medicines were found, including one that had been given to a person. Some specialist mattresses were set incorrectly, some instructions were difficult to find, and not all staff working with people with complex dementia needs had the right training.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. The overall rating had fallen from Outstanding at the previous inspection in May 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff treated people as individuals and respected their privacy, dignity, choices and diversity.
“Interactions between staff and people showed a caring, kind, patient and friendly approach.” from the report
Support for complex needs
The home had experience supporting people with complex dementia, nursing and mental health needs. Inspectors found positive outcomes, including people gaining independence and returning home.
“The service had maintained a good reputation for working well with people with complex needs.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had choices at mealtimes and received support with special diets, nutrition and hydration. Staff worked with healthcare professionals to respond to changing health needs.
“Mealtimes were seen as an important part of the day and staff made sure people had the right support in a relaxed and unrushed atmosphere.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to take part in activities linked to their interests, go out into the community and keep in touch with family and friends.
“The service had developed a wide range of activities which included people's hobbies and interests as well as times to experience some new ones.” from the report
Expired medicines
seriousExpired medicines were found in storage, and one expired medicine had been given to a person. The home's audits had not identified the problem.
“Expired medicines were found in medicine trolleys and cupboards, one medicine had been administered after it had expired.” from the report
Safety equipment checks
needs fixingSome specialist mattresses were set wrongly for people's weights. Instructions for some equipment and care procedures were also not always easy for staff to find.
“A number of specialist mattresses to help prevent pressure damage were set wrongly for the persons weight.” from the report
Training for complex dementia care
needs fixingNot all staff working with people who showed distressed or expressive behaviours had received the required training. Staffing shortages had led to newer staff working in the complex dementia unit sooner than planned.
“Not all staff working within the complex dementia unit had received training to ensure they could work effectively with people.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousRegular audits did not reliably identify medicine and mattress safety problems. Some staff also felt their views were not always heard.
“This lack of oversight into ensuring audits were being monitored for accuracy placed people at potential risk and is a breach of regulation 17” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to make sure expired medicines are removed before they can be given?
- 02How often are medicine storage areas and medicine audits now checked, and who reviews the results?
- 03How are specialist mattresses checked each day to ensure they are set correctly for each person's weight?
- 04Which staff now have training in dementia care, breakaway techniques and responding to distressed or expressive behaviours?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in updating care plans, including detailed instructions about turning, equipment and clinical care?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including the care provided and the care home premises; the previous inspection was on 17 May 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 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 Raleigh Mead Limited
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from OutstandingSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“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.”
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.