CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ford Place Nursing Home
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and pandemic arrangements at Ford Place Nursing Home.
This was a targeted inspection on 11 February 2021. It looked at how the home prevented and controlled COVID-19 infections. The inspection was announced the day before.
Inspectors found good arrangements for staffing, testing, vaccinations, visitors, protective equipment, cleaning and isolation. They said staff followed infection control procedures and worked well together.
People were supported to keep in touch and take part in social activities. End-of-life visits were managed sensitively. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Pandemic planning
The home had shared its pandemic plans and risk assessments with relevant organisations. Staffing had been carefully planned and no agency staff had been used since the start of the pandemic.
“The provider had clearly communicated their contingency plans and risk assessments around the management of the pandemic” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found strong teamwork, good hygiene practices and high standards of cleanliness. Staff used and disposed of protective equipment safely.
“There was evidence of strong teamwork and staff taking individual responsibility to ensure hygiene practices were maintained” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home planned a gradual return to visiting, using a screened conservatory, protective equipment and extra cleaning. Visits for people nearing the end of life were managed according to their individual needs.
“A conservatory at the back of the service had been set up with protective screens and robust use of protective personal equipment” from the report
Activities and contact
People had regular opportunities for social interaction and communication. The home also used technology to help people maintain important relationships.
“Service users had regular opportunities to engage in social interaction and communication with others” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visiting arrangements changed since the February 2021 inspection?
- 02How do you currently manage testing, PPE and isolation for new or returning residents?
- 03How would you support visits if my relative was approaching the end of their life?
- 04What social activities and technology are currently available to help residents keep in touch with family?
- 05How do you manage staffing levels if staff are absent or there is an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide an overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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 2018
Rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptional, person-centred care, with some records and staff training needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 November 2017. Inspectors reviewed care plans and medicines records, observed care, and spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They inspected all five key questions.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, clean surroundings and kind care. They also found that people's health, nutrition, risks, dignity and choices were generally well supported.
The home was rated Outstanding for Responsive and Well-led, giving an overall rating of Outstanding. Inspectors found highly personalised care, activities every day, strong family involvement, exceptional end of life care and very good leadership and quality checks.
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's backgrounds, preferences, routines and communication needs. Staff followed this information so people could retain independence and dignity.
“People had care plans, which clearly illustrated their needs and wishes.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home offered planned and spontaneous activities throughout the week. These were adapted to individual interests and abilities and helped people stay connected with others.
“Activities were provided every day of the week and helped prevent social isolation.” from the report
End of life care
Inspectors found thoughtful planning and support for people and their families at the end of life. Staff focused on comfort, dignity and people's last wishes.
“End of life care was exceptional and demonstrated the value staff placed on people in their care.” from the report
Strong leadership
The home had clear leadership, motivated staff and systems that used feedback and incidents to improve care. Staff said they felt supported to learn and develop.
“There were robust quality assurance systems, which took into account constant feedback about the service and people's experiences.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet assessed needs. Medicines were administered by trained staff, with clear records and regular checks.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Conflicting repositioning instructions
seriousOne person's records gave different instructions about how often they should be repositioned. Inspectors said this could have led to different care being given.
“The only concern we had was the frequency of positional changes as one person's record gave staff different guidance, one record said two hourly another three-four hourly.” from the report
Some training was not complete
needs fixingSome newer staff felt training could be more detailed. Some staff had missed training on individual needs, including bereavement care, because they had been absent or sessions had been cancelled.
“Some staff had not had some training around people's individual needs such as bereavement care either because they had been off or training cancelled as there were not enough staff to attend.” from the report
Night-time environment
minorInspectors heard concerns about bright lights and noise affecting sleep. They said the manager should consider these environmental factors.
“These environmental factors could be considered by the registered manager to help them promote a good night's sleep for people using the service.” from the report
Room identification
minorInspectors said the home could improve signs to help people find and recognise bedrooms. Rooms had names and numbers but little else to distinguish them.
“The service could consider the use of signage to help orientate people.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure repositioning instructions are consistent across all care records?
- 02What training have newer staff completed on the Mental Capacity Act, individual needs and bereavement care?
- 03What changes have been made to night-time lighting and noise to support people's sleep?
- 04How are families involved in reviewing care plans and end of life wishes?
- 05How are activities adapted for people who are frail, have dementia or have communication difficulties?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions and was the first inspection since the home was registered under a new provider in November 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Ford Place Nursing Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- September 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 September 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.