CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Forest Court Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People felt safe and there were enough staff. However, inspectors found incomplete records for prescribed creams, missing employment histories in some recruitment files, limited diabetes guidance and a previous incident involving an unlocked medicines trolley.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management was described as approachable and supportive. The home had systems to monitor medicines, infection control, falls, incidents and other areas of quality.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home's safety needed improvement, including medicines records and recruitment checks.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and the home's quality checks.
People generally felt safe and enjoyed living at the home. Staff were kind, respectful and knew people well. The home was clean, infection control arrangements were in place, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
Safety was still rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps in records for prescribed creams, missing employment history details in some recruitment files and limited guidance for staff supporting people with diabetes. The home took action during or after the inspection.
The overall rating was Good. Caring and well-led were also Good. The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in January 2022, and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations referred to in that earlier report.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff to meet people's needs. People and relatives also said staffing was adequate.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs at Forest Court.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences and supported privacy, dignity and independence. The interactions seen by inspectors were warm and friendly.
“All the interactions we observed between people and staff were positive and friendly.” from the report
Clean home
The premises were clean and infection control arrangements were in place. The home had processes for managing outbreaks and deep cleaning rooms.
“The premises were very clean and there were no malodours.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found effective systems for checking quality and safety. The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingFour of the seven recruitment files checked had missing parts of people's employment histories. The home was collecting the missing information.
“We saw in 4 of 7 files checked there were varying amounts of employment histories missing.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingRecords did not always show whether prescribed creams had been applied. The home introduced stronger procedures after inspectors raised this.
“However, we found some concerns in relation to recording when prescribed creams had been applied.” from the report
Diabetes guidance
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain what staff should do if a person with diabetes became unwell. The home said more information would be added.
“There was no information to support staff on how to manage this if the person became unwell.” from the report
Notifications
needs fixingSome complaints treated as safeguarding concerns were not reported to the CQC when they should have been. Management said it understood the requirement and would notify the CQC in future.
“However, we found some complaints have been set up as abuse concerns to the local authority safeguarding team.” from the report
- 01Have full employment histories now been obtained and checked for every staff member?
- 02How do you now record that prescribed creams have been applied?
- 03What written guidance is now available for staff if someone with diabetes becomes unwell?
- 04What were the results of the further testing after the legionella was found?
- 05How will you make sure safeguarding concerns received through the complaints process are notified to the CQC when required?
This was an unannounced inspection that rated Safe, Caring and Well-led; Effective and Responsive were not given separate ratings in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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, January 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks from staffing and care responses, and people were not always treated with dignity.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 October 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe, Caring and Well-led after receiving concerns about dignity, staffing and communication. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment and management systems.
The home did not always have enough suitably skilled staff. Some people waited a long time for help, including when using the call bell. Risk assessments and care records were sometimes missing or incomplete. Inspectors also saw people asking for help without staff responding, and found examples of care that did not protect dignity and respect.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The ratings for Safe, Caring and Well-led were Requires Improvement. Effective and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Safeguarding awareness
Staff understood the possible signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns to the manager or outside agencies.
“Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for infection prevention, PPE, testing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Medicines ordering
Ordering medicines was well managed between the home, the GP practice and the community pharmacy. Records showed people received their medicines as prescribed.
“Processes and systems in place for ordering medicines were effective and well managed between the service, GP practice and community pharmacy.” from the report
Approachable leadership
People, relatives and professionals said they could raise concerns. Feedback about the registered manager was positive.
“I can tap his door at any time, he's approachable” from the report
Staffing and response times
seriousThe home relied heavily on agency staff, and inspectors could not be assured that enough suitably skilled staff were deployed. People reported waiting hours for help, and call bell response times were not monitored.
“The failure to have deployed sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced staff was a breach of Regulation 18 (Staffing) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Dignity and respect
seriousInspectors saw staff walk past people who were shouting for help without responding. Team records also raised concerns about the way some personal care was provided.
“People were not always treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Missing risk assessments
needs fixingSome care plans and assessments were missing or incomplete, including moving and handling, falls, oral health and tissue viability assessments. This could mean staff did not have the information needed to provide safe care.
“Risk was not always assessed, and care delivery was not consistently monitored.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingSome relatives found it difficult to contact people by telephone. Inspectors also heard concerns about some staff not communicating clearly enough in English.
“Relatives could not always communicate with their loved ones because the telephone system in place was not suitable.” from the report
- 01How many permanent and agency care workers and nurses are now planned for each shift?
- 02How do you check and record how quickly staff answer call bells?
- 03How are falls, moving and handling, oral health and tissue viability assessments kept complete and up to date?
- 04What action has been taken to make sure people receive personal care that protects their dignity?
- 05How can relatives reliably contact people by telephone, and how do you check that staff communicate clearly about care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led only; Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 2022 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 Forest Court Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodCaring: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
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.