CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fleet Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were assessed with them. Staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and learning from incidents were all found to be safe, although some medicine and safety records needed improvement.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's physical, mental health and social needs. Staff had appropriate training, people received suitable food and healthcare, and legal requirements were followed where people could not make particular decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion. People were involved in care decisions, and their privacy, dignity, independence, relationships and end of life wishes were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people's backgrounds, preferences, communication needs and routines. People had access to activities, community trips, religious support and complaint processes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had experienced leadership, an open culture and strong systems for monitoring quality. Managers used feedback, incident reviews and audits to identify improvements.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Signature at Fleet was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some medicine records and dementia-friendly design issues to check.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered with CQC. Inspectors visited without notice on 2 and 3 February 2023. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, had enough staff, and were supported by staff with suitable training.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Care was personalised, communication needs were met, and people could take part in activities and maintain relationships. The home had strong management and systems for learning from incidents and feedback.
Inspectors found some issues that were addressed during the visit or were already being addressed. These included incomplete medicine records, limited fire information on some floors, a cluttered cupboard and corridors that were not yet dementia-friendly.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff speaking kindly and respectfully. People described staff as caring and felt they had positive relationships with them.
“We observed staff were kind and caring to people.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's backgrounds, interests, routines, choices and communication needs. Staff showed they understood how each person wanted to be supported.
“People's care plans were very person centred, they focused on the individual's background, interests and routine.” from the report
Strong management oversight
Managers used audits, meetings and incident reviews to monitor the home and identify improvements. Staff described management as supportive and approachable.
“There was an open, 'no blame' reporting culture, people, their families and relevant external professionals and agencies had been informed of any medicine errors or notifiable incidents.” from the report
Support at the end of life
Staff had relevant training and worked with healthcare professionals. People's end of life wishes were recorded in personalised care plans, and families were supported to spend time with them.
“People's wishes for their end of life care and whom they wished to be involved to meet their emotional and spiritual care needs were documented in highly personalised plans of care.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingInspectors found a controlled drug had been signed for by one staff member instead of two. Two transdermal patch records were incomplete or incorrect, although the electronic medicine record was correct.
“We found 2 examples of where the paper record was either incomplete or incorrect, although the person's Emar was correct.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
minorThe beige corridor walls on the reminiscence unit did not help people living with dementia to find their way independently. A refurbishment with more suitable colours was planned for 2023.
“However, the walls of the corridors were beige, which did not empower people living with dementia to orientate themselves independently.” from the report
Written consent records
needs fixingAfter care plans were moved to a new electronic system, written consent from some people was still being obtained. The manager knew about this and said action was under way.
“Staff advised people's care plans had been re-written when the provider had introduced the new electronic care planning system and people's written consent was still in the process of being obtained.” from the report
Fire information and storage
minorThere was limited fire evacuation information on the first and second floors, and an activities cupboard was cluttered. The home addressed both points during the inspection.
“The activities cupboard was cluttered and therefore a potential risk in case of a fire.” from the report
- 01How are controlled drugs now checked and signed for by two staff members?
- 02How are daily checks of transdermal medicine patches recorded?
- 03Has written consent been obtained for the new electronic care plans?
- 04When will the planned refurbishment improve the dementia unit's corridor colours and layout?
- 05How will you make sure fire evacuation information is clear on every floor?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care provided; it was the first inspection since the current registration. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but some care plans contained old or conflicting information.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 29 and 30 October 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care, reviewed care records and medicines records, and checked staffing, training, safety and management systems.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines practice, good support with health and nutrition, and care that respected people's dignity, choices and independence.
There were some weaknesses in care plan records. Some contained missing detail or information that was conflicting, out of date or repetitive. The deputy manager had started reviewing these plans. Inspectors also recorded one family's distress about how a financial issue was handled during bereavement.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff to meet people's needs safely. Staff responded quickly to call bells and staffing was adjusted when people's needs changed.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff had their medicines skills checked regularly. Records showed that medicines, including creams, patches and medicines given when needed, were managed safely.
“People's medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm, respectful way. Relatives said staff interaction had a positive effect on people's wellbeing and happiness.
“People experienced caring relationships with staff who treated them with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to follow their interests and hobbies. Those who did not want group activities could receive one-to-one time.
“People were supported to follow their interests and hobbies, for example; gardening, singing and various arts and crafts.” from the report
Strong management checks
The management team used audits, incident reviews, night visits and emergency exercises to identify and address risks.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered, which were effectively operated by the management team.” from the report
Care plan records
needs fixingSome care plans lacked detail or included information that was conflicting, repetitive or no longer current. Staff generally knew what care people needed, but the records did not always show this clearly.
“It was noted that some plans lacked detail, or contained conflicting, out of date or repetitive information.” from the report
Handling of a financial issue
needs fixingOne person and their family were distressed by how a financial matter was handled while they were grieving. A senior manager agreed to apologise and provide an appropriate response.
“One person and their family had been distressed by the insensitive, uncaring manner the provider dealt with a financial issue, when they were still grieving for their loved one.” from the report
- 01How have you completed the review of care plans that contained old, conflicting or missing information?
- 02How do you make sure changes in mobility, repositioning needs and specialist equipment are recorded promptly?
- 03What is your process for handling financial concerns, particularly when a family is dealing with bereavement?
- 04How do you check that staffing levels continue to match residents' changing needs?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing their care plan and choosing activities?
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and it was the first inspection under the home's new legal entity. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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 Fleet Hall Care Home
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 August 2017.
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.