CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Forest View
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, cleaning, visiting, isolation and social distancing. Staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 were said to be managed effectively.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed as a rated question. Inspectors did note that staff used one-to-one time and activities to support people's wellbeing during isolation.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection. Inspectors did look at the provider's infection prevention policies and staffing arrangements.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Forest View was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and support for people during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 7 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, staffing pressures and whether actions from the last inspection had been maintained.
Inspectors found that the home was clean and hygienic. Staff used personal protective equipment correctly, followed testing and vaccination requirements, and supported people to isolate while reducing the effect on their wellbeing. Visiting was safely supported.
The home was inspected but not rated. The report gives an assessment of infection control practices, not a new overall rating or ratings for all five areas of care.
Clean surroundings
The home was clean, with regular cleaning of rooms, communal areas and high-touch surfaces. Laundry was handled separately and washed at a suitable temperature.
“The home was clean and hygienic and there were cleaning schedules in place for people's rooms and communal spaces.” from the report
Safe infection control
Staff wore masks and used PPE correctly. They had refreshed their infection control and handwashing training.
“Staff had undertaken refresher training in infection prevention and control, the correct use of PPE and their handwashing competence revisited.” from the report
Support during isolation
Staff tried to reduce the impact of isolation on people, including people living with dementia. They offered one-to-one time, activities and extra reading or listening materials.
“One-to-one time was utilised to talk to people or offer therapeutic activities such as hand massage or painting their nails in people's rooms.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home allowed people to keep in contact with relatives during the outbreak. Visitors received PPE and testing in line with the guidance in force at the time.
“The provider had ensured that visiting was facilitated within the home and people were able to maintain contact with their relatives during the outbreak.” from the report
Vaccination
All people living at the home had received two vaccine doses. Booster visits had been arranged for the three people who had not yet received one.
“All people living at the service had received both doses of a coronavirus vaccine and all but three had received their booster.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the inspection?
- 02How do you support people living with dementia who find isolation or social distancing difficult?
- 03How are visitors and essential care givers tested and supported when they arrive?
- 04How do you manage staffing shortages during an outbreak, including the use of agency staff?
- 05How do you make sure cleaning and laundry procedures are followed and checked?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, COVID-19 staffing pressures and actions from the previous inspection; it was not a full service inspection and the other ratings were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but care was not always personalised and leadership needed to embed changes.
Inspectors visited on 23 November 2021. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management information.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. People were protected from avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, staff had suitable training, and people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People were also supported with food, drink, activities and contact with relatives.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Care plans did not always give staff enough practical guidance, and information about people's communication needs was not fully adapted. Management systems had improved, but had not always identified these problems or shown that improvements were fully embedded.
The overall rating stayed Requires Improvement. This was an improvement from earlier inspections, when the home had breached several regulations and received a warning notice. At this inspection, the provider was no longer in breach of regulations, but the home had received this rating at four consecutive inspections.
Safer care
Risks such as falls, poor hydration and unsafe movement were identified and managed. Medicines records and oversight had improved through the electronic system.
“People were protected from avoidable harm as risks to people's health and safety were identified and assessed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed warm and compassionate interactions. People were supported to make choices and retain independence.
“We observed people being spoken to by staff in a caring and respectful manner.” from the report
Activities and relationships
Dedicated activities staff helped people take part in music, crafts and other interests. People were also supported to build relationships and stay in contact with family.
“There were dedicated activities champions who offered a range of activities to capture people's interests.” from the report
Improved oversight
Management systems had been revised. This included better monitoring of falls and medicines, and a service improvement plan reviewed with outside organisations.
“Quality assurance and monitoring processes had been revised and updated to provide the management team with effective oversight of risks to people's health and safety.” from the report
Care plans not always followed
needs fixingSome assessed needs and preferences were not used fully to guide care. One person was not supported in the most effective way during a meal, and another person's anxiety guidance lacked practical examples.
“Information about some people's needs had not always been utilised to fully inform people's care and ensure their needs and preferences were met.” from the report
Communication support incomplete
needs fixingThe home had not yet fully adapted menu information for people living with dementia. Pictorial menus were planned but were not in place during the inspection.
“At this inspection some improvements had been made but work remained ongoing to ensure the AIS was met.” from the report
Leadership still embedding improvements
needs fixingManagement systems had not identified every shortfall in person-centred care. Staff also gave mixed feedback about how well important information was communicated.
“Systems had not identified that people had not always received care in line with their needs and preferences.” from the report
PPE practice needed correction
minorA catering staff member was seen without a facemask in the kitchen. The provider responded immediately and revised its PPE procedures.
“During the inspection catering staff were observed without wearing a facemask in the kitchen.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure each person's care plan gives staff practical guidance, especially when someone becomes anxious or needs help with meals?
- 02Are pictorial menus now in use, and how do you support people who cannot remember a meal choice made the previous day?
- 03How do you check that staff are following people's assessed preferences and communication needs in everyday care?
- 04What progress has been made with the electronic care system and how is its effect on people's care being checked?
- 05How do you keep relatives informed about personal care, meals, activities and changes in their family member's needs?
This inspection covered all five CQC key questions and checked infection prevention and control, with particular follow-up of improvements required after the previous inspection and warning notice. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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 View
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 December 2010.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.