CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Forest Hill House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, safe visiting arrangements and kind interactions.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, arranged testing, kept the home clean, managed outbreaks and admitted people safely. They also found visitor checks, vaccination records and risk assessments were in place.
People said they were happy living at the home and described staff as caring. The home supported contact with relatives while adapting to changing visiting rules.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five questions.
Visitor safety
Visitors had rapid testing, PPE, health and symptom checks and hand hygiene measures. Vaccination status was checked for visiting professionals.
“Safe practices were in place for welcoming visitors to the home.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors found good supplies of PPE, correct use by staff and training in infection prevention and control.
“Supplies of PPE were in good supply, stock checks maintained, and we observed staff wearing this correctly.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and domestic staff cleaned high-touch points and carried out deep cleaning.
“The home had a good standard of cleanliness.” from the report
Contact with relatives
The home assessed people's needs and worked to make visits happen in a comfortable place, while changing its approach as restrictions changed.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their loved ones during the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently monitoring and reducing the impact of staffing pressures on people living in the home?
- 02What testing, PPE and hygiene measures are now used for visitors and staff?
- 03How do you check that visiting professionals meet current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 04What arrangements are in place if there is an infection outbreak or staff shortage?
- 05How will visits with relatives be arranged if government guidance changes again?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some risk and medicines records needing further development.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 and 3 January 2020. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, incident records and management checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and happy. Inspectors found kind staff, personalised care, activities, good access to healthcare and a clean home.
The home had improved since its previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had multiple regulatory breaches. Risk assessments, medicines management and quality checks had improved, and the provider was no longer in breach.
Some records still needed strengthening. The assessment for hot surfaces did not fully consider individual risks, guidance for occasional medicines lacked enough detail, and some mental capacity paperwork needed more information. The manager began addressing these issues during or after the inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“People told us they felt safe, supported and happy living at Forest Hill House Nursing Home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw compassionate interactions. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“We saw many respectful and compassionate interactions during the day.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences, outcomes and individual needs. People and relatives were involved in care reviews.
“Plans were personalised and relevant to the person.” from the report
Activities and social life
The home offered varied group activities and one-to-one options. People helped shape the activities programme.
“People were able to enjoy activities in communal areas as a group and the home also provided activities on a one to one basis” from the report
Improved leadership
Management checks had become more effective. Staff felt supported, and the team worked together to learn and improve.
“Improvements had been made and clear action plans were in place to improve oversight of the service and to support learning and reflection.” from the report
Hot-surface risk assessment
needs fixingThe environmental risk assessment did not fully consider people's individual risks from hot surfaces. This was addressed immediately during the inspection.
“the assessment for protecting people from harm from hot surfaces was not comprehensive enough to consider people's individual risks.” from the report
Occasional medicines guidance
needs fixingGuidance for medicines taken only when needed did not explain the individual signs and symptoms clearly enough. The manager made further improvements after the inspection.
“guidance did not give details of the individual signs and symptoms to ensure the medicine was given consistently.” from the report
Mental capacity records
minorMental capacity assessments had been completed, but the paperwork did not always give enough detail about the decision being made. The manager began correcting this.
“However, the paperwork required more detail about the decision that was being made.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to risk assessments for hot surfaces, and how do you check that they reflect each person's individual risks?
- 02How do you now record the signs and symptoms for medicines that are taken only when needed?
- 03How do you make sure mental capacity assessments explain the specific decision being considered?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in updating care plans and choosing activities?
- 05What improvements have been sustained since the previous inspection's Requires Improvement rating?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous inspection's Requires Improvement ratings were reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 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.
Every inspection of Forest Hill House Nursing Home
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Forest Hill House Nursing Home →
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Forest Hill House Nursing Home →
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 March 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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.