CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ford House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements. They were only somewhat assured about shielding, social distancing and the safe use of PPE.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Ford House: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection controls but some PPE and distancing practices needed improvement.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 2 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about visitor arrangements, safe admissions, testing, cleaning, outbreak planning and infection control policies. Staff had enough protective equipment and visitors were scheduled and escorted.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about shielding, social distancing and the safe use of protective equipment. They discussed zoning for new people coming into the home and correct PPE use with the registered manager.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit checked infection control arrangements but did not give an overall quality rating.
Controlled visiting
Visits were scheduled, limited to certain areas and supported by staff escorts to reduce infection risks.
“Staff made sure that people were protected against the transmission of infection from visitors by scheduling visits, limiting areas that visitors could access and being available to escort visitors.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home had arrangements to admit people safely.
“Staff put appropriate actions into place to make sure people were admitted safely into the service.” from the report
Testing and PPE
Regular COVID-19 testing was carried out, and staff had supplies of masks, gloves and aprons.
“Staff had enough personal protective equipment, such as masks, gloves and aprons, and had supported people so that they also understood the need for this.” from the report
Cleaning and outbreak planning
The home increased cleaning of frequently touched surfaces and had COVID-19 policies and plans to guide staff.
“There was COVID-19 specific policies and plans, which meant staff were guided to take appropriate actions to reduce the risk of transmission.” from the report
Shielding and social distancing
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that shielding and social distancing rules were being met. They discussed considering zoning for new people coming into the home.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Correct PPE use
needs fixingInspectors found that staff did not always wear PPE correctly and discussed safe practice with the registered manager.
“We discussed safe practice with the registered manager when staff did not wear PPE correctly.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure all staff wear PPE correctly every time?
- 02What zoning arrangements are used for people who are newly admitted?
- 03How are shielding and social distancing rules monitored in the home?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 05How are visiting arrangements managed if there is an infection risk or outbreak?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the other areas of care were not inspected or rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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, October 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, effective and kind care, but care plans were not always detailed or up to date.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 September 2017. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also looked at care records, training records, audits and meeting minutes.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines procedures, suitable training, support with food and health needs, and respectful care. People could make choices and take part in activities.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Some care plans did not give enough detail about how care should be provided, including oral hygiene, diabetes care and creams. Staff knew people's needs, but the records did not always show this clearly.
The overall rating was Good. The report says two breaches found at the previous comprehensive inspection had been met by the focused inspection in March 2017, and that improvements had been maintained.
Safe medicines
People received their prescribed medicines on time. Medicines were stored safely, reviewed and checked through regular audits.
“Medicines were stored securely and within the required temperature range.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received training and supervision, and inspectors saw that they applied their learning when supporting people.
“This meant that people had staff that were correctly trained to support their assessed needs.” from the report
Food and health support
People had a choice of meals and drinks, with extra help when needed. Staff supported access to healthcare professionals.
“When people needed help to eat and drink, they were given the encouragement and support with these needs.” from the report
Open management
Managers were available and knew what was happening in the home. Audits and meetings were used to identify and follow up improvements.
“These measures all helped to ensure that staff were well led and had the knowledge and systems they needed to care for people in an effective way.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not clearly explain how staff should meet specific needs, such as oral hygiene, diabetes care and applying creams. The report says this could put people at risk of receiving care that did not meet their needs.
“Care plans that we looked at did not always provide detailed information on how peoples care needs were to be met.” from the report
- 01Has the promised review of all care plans been completed, and how do you check that they remain up to date?
- 02How are staff given clear instructions for oral hygiene, diabetes support and applying creams?
- 03How do you make sure agency nurses know each person's needs when they work in the home?
- 04How do residents and relatives influence activities, menus and changes to care?
- 05How are accidents, incidents and complaints reviewed, and what changes have resulted?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, including all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 2017 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 Ford House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.