CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Four Seasons
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, visiting, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak management. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, visiting arrangements and measures to manage COVID-19 pressures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 affected the home.
The home had safe visiting arrangements, including a visiting pod and telephone contact. Inspectors found enough protective equipment, staff training on its use, regular COVID-19 testing and cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
Inspectors said they were assured that the home was managing infection risks, admissions, protective equipment, testing and possible outbreaks. The service was meeting the vaccination requirement in force at the time of the inspection.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a new overall rating or ratings for the other four areas.
Family visiting
The home had systems to support safe visits. It created an alternative visiting pod and also used telephone contact to support visits.
“Visitation adjustments had been introduced including an alternative visiting pod which had been created to safely facilitate visits from relatives and friends.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was sufficient protective equipment, stored in designated areas. Staff had training on how to put it on and take it off.
“The service had sufficient stock of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) which was organised in designated areas for donning and doffing (put on and take off).” from the report
Infection control
The home followed a cleaning schedule, carried out regular testing and kept its COVID-19 systems and policy up to date.
“A cleaning schedule was followed to ensure effective measures to reduce infection risks, including tasks such as cleaning of any regular touchpoint surfaces.” from the report
People's health needs
People's health needs had been assessed and plans were in place to reduce the risk COVID-19 posed to their health and wellbeing.
“The service had ensured people's health needs had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise the risk of COVID-19 to their health and wellbeing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently support visits from relatives, and is the alternative visiting pod still available?
- 02How do you manage staffing pressures if COVID-19 affects the workforce?
- 03How do you make sure staff and visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
- 04How often are staff and residents tested, and what happens if there is a positive result?
- 05How do you check that cleaning of frequently touched surfaces and other infection control measures are being completed?
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 16 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, May 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found staff morale and leadership needed improvement.
The CQC made an unannounced, planned inspection visit over several dates in April 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care records, recruitment files, training records and management checks.
The home was rated Good for being safe, effective, caring and responsive. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines practice, personalised care, respect for people's choices and dignity, and good support with health, food, activities and relationships.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. Staff said morale was low, staff meetings were not regular and they did not always feel able to challenge senior staff or that their views were respected. The provider said it would act promptly to improve support and morale.
The overall rating stayed Good. The previous comprehensive inspection in February 2016 also rated the home Good, but the well-led rating has now fallen to Requires Improvement. CQC said it would monitor progress and ask the provider for updates.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm interactions. Staff knew people's preferences and supported privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
“We observed many friendly and caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's current needs and preferences. People could make choices about meals, activities, community access and who supported them.
“Care was consistently delivered with consideration of people's individual needs whilst encouraging their independence.” from the report
Good health support
Staff worked with health and social care professionals and kept health records. Inspectors found positive outcomes and prompt support when people experienced pain or changes in health.
“People, relatives and health professionals told us the care provided was effective and people experienced positive outcomes.” from the report
Low staff morale
needs fixingMost staff inspectors spoke with raised concerns about leadership. Staff did not always feel confident to challenge senior staff and said their views were not always listened to or respected.
“Staff morale was low. Staff told us they did not always feel confident to challenge more senior staff regarding concerns they might have” from the report
Limited staff feedback
needs fixingStaff meetings had not taken place regularly and staff surveys had not been completed. The provider said it would take action to improve support and morale.
“They also told us they had limited opportunities to feed back to the provider as staff meetings had not taken place regularly and staff surveys were not completed.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to improve staff morale since the April 2019 inspection?
- 02How often are staff meetings now held, and how are staff views recorded and acted on?
- 03How can staff raise concerns about senior staff, and how do you make sure they are listened to?
- 04What recent checks show that medicines continue to be given safely and recorded correctly?
- 05How do you involve residents and families in care plans, activities, meals and end-of-life decisions?
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with visits, observations, record checks and telephone calls to relatives and staff. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 May 2019 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 Four Seasons
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.