CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Florence Road
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with limited communal space noted.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 and 5 March 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and staff. They reviewed care, medicines, staff recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, received appropriate care and treatment, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The inspection found improvements since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement and published in March 2019. The home was no longer in breach of regulations. Inspectors noted improvements in management, communication, teamwork and quality checks.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staff were safely recruited, and medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely.
“People had their medicines ordered, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Skilled support
Staff received induction, ongoing training and supervision. Training included positive behaviour support, wound management and specialist equipment for medicines.
“Staff had completed an induction and had on-going training and support which enabled them to carry out their roles effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and families spoke positively about the care. Inspectors observed warm interactions and staff supporting people with dignity and reassurance.
“We observed warm, friendly interactions between people and the staff team.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Care plans reflected people's histories, preferences and changing needs. Activities included bowling, theatre visits, art therapy, music therapy and links with places of worship.
“Social activities were tailored to people's interests and abilities.” from the report
Limited communal space
minorThe building had limited space for people to socialise or share a meal. The manager described plans for a dining area, and a lounge being used temporarily as a staff room was due to return to communal use.
“The building provided limited space for people to meet to socialise or share a meal.” from the report
Complaints policy
minorInspectors advised that the complaints policy should explain how to appeal a decision. The manager amended the policy during the inspection.
“We advised that the complaints policy contain details of how to appeal against a decision.” from the report
- 01How much communal space is currently available for residents to socialise and share meals, and has the planned dining area been completed?
- 02How do you support people who have swallowing difficulties, and how are their specialist diet plans followed?
- 03How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs, communication or behaviour changes?
- 04What activities are available for someone with my relative's interests, abilities and cultural or spiritual needs?
- 05How can families raise a complaint and appeal if they are unhappy with the response?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions; the agency's registered home care activity had not started and was not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and skilled care, but safeguarding reporting and management arrangements needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 and 22 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with 10 people, two relatives and 10 members of staff. They also reviewed records and contacted other professionals.
People described staff as kind, caring and skilled. Inspectors found enough staff, good care planning, effective support for complex needs, and good links with health and social care professionals.
There were important shortfalls. A large amount of medicine had gone missing and was not reported promptly to the local authority and police. Some covert medicine plans lacked important details. There had also been no registered manager since October 2017, although a new manager had started three weeks before the inspection.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. The report says the provider had started improvements, but inspectors could not yet assess whether they would be effective and lasting.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives consistently spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw people treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
“We received feedback from people and relatives which supported this.” from the report
Specialist staff skills
Staff received core and specialist training for complex health and neurological needs. Professionals also gave positive feedback about the team's skills.
“Staff received core and specialist training which was effective and gave them enough information to meet people's complex health and neurological needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences and included individual activities, therapies and communication methods. Staff knew how to support people to make choices.
“Care plans were personalised and detailed exactly how the person wanted their needs and preferences to be met.” from the report
Enough staff on shifts
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. People said staff were available and did not rush them.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safeguarding was not reported promptly
seriousA large amount of medicine went missing. The incident was not reported promptly to the local authority and police, and the medicines had not been recovered when the report was written.
“The service had completed an internal investigation and acted in response but the medicines had not been recovered.” from the report
Covert medicine plans lacked details
needs fixingSome plans did not say how medicines should be given or include the pharmacist's advice about mixing them with food or drink. Immediate action was taken to clarify this.
“However, covert medicine plans did not include the route of administration.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere had been no manager registered with CQC since October 2017. A new manager had started shortly before the inspection, but the service's improvement plan had not yet been tested.
“There had not been a manager registered with CQC since October 2017.” from the report
Some recruitment records incomplete
minorGaps in some staff employment histories had not always been explored. The office manager took action to add a new check to future recruitment.
“However, gaps in some staff's employment history had not always been explored.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken since the inspection to prevent medicines going missing again?
- 02How are safeguarding incidents now reported to the local authority, police and CQC?
- 03Is the new manager now registered with CQC, and if not, when is this expected?
- 04Have all covert medicine plans been updated with the correct route and pharmacist's advice?
- 05How are you checking that the improvement and quality assurance plan is working?
This inspection covered the care home, including its premises and care; the registered personal care service for people living in the community was not operating and was not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 2019 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 Florence Road
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 February 2011.
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.