CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Fountain View
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough experienced staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk plans and effective infection control. One unexplained bruising incident had not been reviewed robustly or escalated to the local safeguarding team.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed assessments and support plans, staff received induction and ongoing training, and healthcare and dietary needs were supported. Inspectors noted that staff did not currently receive training in mental health conditions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind, supportive and respectful. People’s choices, dignity, independence, relationships and communication needs were supported.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care was highly personalised and focused on helping people achieve their own goals. People were supported with meaningful activities, community involvement, communication and opportunities to live as independently as possible.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found a positive culture, strong leadership and well-organised quality systems. The management team used feedback, incidents and audits to identify improvements.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Fountain View was rated Outstanding overall; inspectors found highly person-centred care and strong leadership, with some improvements still needed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 13 and 16 March 2018. The inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, training records, rotas, audits and meeting notes.
The home supported five adults with learning disabilities and mental health needs. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices and develop their independence. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient and the home was clean.
The strongest findings were about responsive care and leadership. People were supported to reach personal goals, take part in activities, use local services and build community links. The management systems were described as robust and proactive.
The overall rating was Outstanding. Safe, effective and caring were rated Good. Responsive and well-led were rated Outstanding. This was the first comprehensive inspection under the current provider.
Personal goals and independence
People were supported to build skills and achieve personal goals, including personal care, shaving and accessing the community more independently.
“The support provided was achieving positive outcomes for people and staff spoke with pride about what people had achieved.” from the report
Meaningful lives
People took part in a wide range of activities, social events, holidays and community opportunities. Their choices and interests shaped what they did.
“People were living active and meaningful lives and were given opportunities to expand their horizons, to get involved in new activities and to live as full a life as possible.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff administering medicines had been trained and assessed as competent.
“Medicines were only administered to people by staff who had been trained to do this and who had been assessed as competent to do so.” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors saw kind and good-humoured interactions. People’s individuality, privacy, dignity and communication methods were respected.
“People were cared for with dignity and respect.” from the report
Strong leadership
The home had a positive culture and management systems that were organised, proactive and focused on improving people’s care.
“There were a range of robust management systems and processes in place to support the registered manager to perform her role effectively and they were exceptionally well organised and proactive at making changes if this improved the service people received.” from the report
Mental health training
needs fixingStaff did not currently receive training in mental health conditions, even though several people had mental health diagnoses. Inspectors recommended reviewing the training provided.
“We did note that staff did not currently undertake training in mental health conditions despite a number of the people using the service having a diagnosis of a range of mental health disorders.” from the report
Unexplained bruising incident
seriousOne incident of unexplained bruising had not been reviewed robustly or escalated to the local safeguarding team. The registered manager took action after the inspection to improve the process for future incidents.
“We were not, however, confident that one incident of unexplained bruising had been reviewed robustly and it had not been escalated to the local safeguarding team which is best practice for incidents of unexplained bruising.” from the report
Building access and condition
minorOne person’s room had ceiling damage that was being repaired. Bathroom flooring was worn, and inspectors recommended considering level access for one person with limited mobility.
“We have also made a recommendation that the provider look at whether one person with limited mobility might benefit from level access to the home.” from the report
Limited private space
minorThere were few areas apart from bedrooms where people could spend time alone or receive visitors privately.
“There were limited areas where people could spend time alone, or have visits from their friends and family, other than in their rooms.” from the report
- 01What mental health training have staff completed since the inspection, and how does it reflect the needs of the people living here?
- 02How are unexplained injuries or bruising now reviewed and escalated to safeguarding services when necessary?
- 03Has the recommended level access for the person with limited mobility been assessed or introduced?
- 04What improvements have been made to the worn bathroom flooring and the areas available for private time or visitors?
- 05How will you support my relative to pursue work or education opportunities if this is one of their goals?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and was the first comprehensive inspection under the current provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 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 Fountain View
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2018Outstandingcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2016.
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.