CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Forty4
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including PPE, testing, visiting, cleaning and outbreak arrangements. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- 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?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Forty4 was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements and no immediate concerns reported.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 March 2022. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and autism, and could accommodate up to six people. Inspectors found individual COVID-19 risk assessments, including special arrangements for someone who could not understand how to isolate.
The home was clean and tidy. Inspectors were assured that PPE, testing, visiting, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak arrangements were being managed safely.
The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not provide an overall Good or Outstanding rating.
Individual COVID-19 planning
Each person had a COVID-19 risk assessment. The home made specific arrangements for a person who could not understand how to isolate.
“Each person had a Covid 19 risk assessment which included how to support people to isolate safely in their rooms during a Covid outbreak.” from the report
Infection control systems
Inspectors found robust systems for hygiene and infection prevention and control. An audit had identified improvements and actions were being followed up.
“Robust systems were in place to maintain hygiene and infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in the home.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with schedules to check how often cleaning was done and whether it was effective.
“The home was clean and tidy. Cleaning schedules were in place to monitor the effectiveness and frequency of cleaning, including high touch points.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
The home had arrangements for safe visits, including health checks, testing, face masks and hand sanitiser. Families were told about changes in advance.
“Families had been kept informed of any changes to visiting requirements in advance of any visits.” from the report
Some infection control improvements remained
minorAn infection control audit had found areas needing improvement. The report says these were being addressed through an action plan.
“A recent, thorough IPC audit had identified some areas for improvement, a detailed action plan was in place and actions were being addressed in a timely way.” from the report
Shower-room remedial work
minorSome remedial work was planned in en-suite shower rooms to make cleaning easier.
“A maintenance plan was in place which included some remedial work in the en-suite shower rooms to enable staff to clean more effectively.” from the report
- 01What areas for improvement were identified in the infection prevention and control audit, and have all the actions now been completed?
- 02Has the remedial work in the en-suite shower rooms been completed?
- 03What are the current arrangements for visits, including testing, masks and health checks?
- 04How would you support my relative to isolate safely if they could not understand the need to isolate?
- 05Are there currently any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and what measures are in place to manage them?
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 care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 April 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, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 December 2017 and 5 January 2018. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, a relative and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.
Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and received their medicines safely. There were enough staff, including for one-to-one and two-to-one support in the community. Staff had the training and support needed, and people were helped to maintain their health, make choices and eat food suited to their needs.
Staff were kind, respectful and knew people well. People and relatives were involved in care planning, and support was tailored to people's interests, communication needs and goals. The home had an open culture, listened to feedback and used checks to monitor care. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good.
The report says the home was last inspected in March 2016. No concerns were found then and the service was also rated Good.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe, including when people went into the community. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people's needs and keep them safe, both in the home and in the community.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, privacy and choices. The atmosphere was calm, and staff responded with kindness when people were worried.
“The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed. Staff interactions with people were kind and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
People had detailed support plans covering their communication, health, activities, relationships, independence and personal goals. Plans were reviewed with people and, where appropriate, their families.
“People's support plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained relevant and up to date.” from the report
Open management
The home had a supportive culture where staff could raise concerns and suggest ideas. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to monitor care.
“The registered manager had created an open, transparent and supportive culture within the home which empowered staff to to share ideas and raise any concerns.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure there are enough permanent or familiar staff to provide my relative's required one-to-one or two-to-one support?
- 02How will you communicate with my relative if they use pictures, symbols, objects or a communication aid?
- 03How often will my relative and family be involved in reviewing the support plan, and how will their wishes be recorded?
- 04How will you support my relative's personal goals, activities, relationships and independence?
- 05How do you check that medicines are given as prescribed and that any changes or discrepancies are followed up?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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.
Every inspection of Forty4
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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.