CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Foxbridge House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were handled safely, and there were enough staff to support people. Infection control arrangements were also judged suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences and were reviewed regularly. People were supported with relationships, activities, complaints and end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible management, staff support and regular quality checks. The home involved relatives and worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and strong management, but noted that agency staff were not always familiar with the home.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 3 December 2020. CQC inspected Safe, Responsive and Well-led after receiving concerns about care, welfare and safeguarding. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, effective risk management and suitable infection control. Care plans were detailed and regularly updated, and people were supported to keep in touch with relatives and take part in activities.
The home was also rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Effective and Caring were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating. The previous overall rating, from February 2019, was also Good.
Managing risks
Risks such as falls, choking and pressure ulcers were assessed. Staff followed the agreed plans and lessons were taken from incidents.
“Risks to people were assessed and management plans were in place to address the risks identified.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered by trained staff. Records, storage, controlled drugs and audits were checked and found to be safe.
“People's medicines were administered and managed safely.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, backgrounds and preferences. Relatives were involved and plans were updated when needs changed.
“Each person had a detailed care plan in place which provided information about their needs, backgrounds and preferences.” from the report
Family communication
The home arranged visits and video calls during the pandemic. Relatives received regular updates and could join weekly video meetings.
“The registered manager held weekly video meetings with relatives to discuss changes, share information and gather feedback about the service.” from the report
Quality oversight
The home used checks and audits covering care, training, safeguarding, incidents, complaints and health and safety. Inspectors found no outstanding actions.
“The quality assurance systems we reviewed showed there was an oversight of the quality of the service at all levels.” from the report
Unfamiliar agency staff
minorOne staff member said agency workers who did not know the home could make shifts more stressful because permanent staff had to explain what to do. Inspectors still found staffing levels sufficient.
“It's a bit stressful when we have agency staff that are not familiar with the home because we need to show them what to do instead of getting on with the work itself.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure agency or bank staff understand people's care plans and the layout of the home before starting a shift?
- 02What staffing levels are planned for each shift, and how do you respond when regular staff are absent?
- 03How will relatives be supported to visit or keep in contact if visiting arrangements change?
- 04What were the previous ratings and findings for Effective and Caring, which were not inspected this time?
- 05How are complaints and incidents reviewed, and how do you tell families what has changed as a result?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 February 2021 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, October 2020
Targeted inspection found good infection control; the overall rating was not changed and remains Good.
Inspectors visited on 15 October 2020 to check specific concerns about personal protective equipment, cleaning and social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found that staff had training and support, wore suitable protective equipment and kept their distance. The home was clean and hygienic. Visitors were screened and supported to follow safety guidance.
People could still see relatives and friends in a designated room. Visits were booked in advance and the room was cleaned between visits. The home also had arrangements for testing people and staff.
This was a targeted inspection, so it did not assess the whole service. It was not given a new rating. The previous overall rating remained Good.
Staff training and protective equipment
Staff had training and support on coronavirus, infection control and using protective equipment. Inspectors saw staff using suitable equipment and keeping their distance.
“We observed staff wearing appropriate PPE and socially distancing throughout our visit.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with infection control arrangements in place.
“We saw the home was clean and hygienic throughout.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
Visitors were checked for symptoms and supported to follow protective equipment and distancing guidance. Relatives and friends could visit in a designated room, with visits booked and the room cleaned between visits.
“Visits were booked in advance and the room was cleaned between visits.” from the report
Testing arrangements
The home was following testing guidance for people living there and staff. A designated nursing team carried out the testing consistently.
“There was a designated team of nursing staff that carried all testing on people using the service and staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staff currently trained and supported to use personal protective equipment and follow infection control procedures?
- 02How are visitors screened and supported to follow the home's current safety arrangements?
- 03How are visits organised now, and how are visiting areas cleaned between visits?
- 04How are people living here and staff tested, and who carries out the testing?
- 05How are individual Covid 19 risk assessments reviewed and used for people from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic backgrounds and for staff?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; it did not assess the whole service or change the previous overall Good rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 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 Foxbridge House
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Inadequate
- May 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 March 2013.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bromley
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.