CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Freegrove Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This was not assessed as a separate question, although inspectors noted that the provider had an open and inclusive approach.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention, with some further development suggested.
This was a targeted inspection on 27 November 2020. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks. Visitors were screened for symptoms and had their temperatures taken.
The report also describes regular testing for staff and residents, cleaning schedules for frequently touched areas, and an open culture where staff felt able to raise concerns. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors were given clear information and were screened for infection symptoms before entering.
“All visitors were screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection before being allowed to enter the home, alongside having their temperatures taken.” from the report
Testing arrangements
The home had regular whole-home testing for staff and residents, as well as testing for suspected or symptomatic cases.
“The provider had tests for regular 'whole home testing' as well as tests for any suspected or symptomatic residents or staff.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning schedules included checks that frequently touched surfaces were cleaned regularly.
“Cleaning staff had cleaning schedules, which they were required to complete which included evidence that high touch areas were regularly cleaned.” from the report
Staff support
Staff said they felt supported and able to raise concerns.
“The provider had an open and inclusive approach and staff felt supported and able to raise concerns.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not explain which part of the approach needed development.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01How are visitors currently screened for symptoms and other infection risks before entering?
- 02Are regular whole-home tests still carried out for staff and residents?
- 03How do you check that high-touch areas such as door handles, light switches and TV remotes are cleaned?
- 04What protective equipment and social distancing arrangements are currently in place?
- 05What approach did inspectors suggest developing, and what action has been taken since the inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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, January 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, but the home needed to improve its management and record keeping.
Inspectors visited on 3 and 4 December 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, care workers, the provider and health and social care professionals. They also checked care records, a recruitment file, rotas, audits and policies.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were described as safe, well cared for and treated with dignity. Staff understood people's needs, supported their interests and worked with health professionals.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that three incidents had not been notified to CQC on time. Some records were incomplete or inaccurate, and checks on the quality and safety of the service were not yet fully effective.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it had at the previous inspection. The provider submitted evidence of action after the inspection, but the report does not confirm that every improvement had been completed.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives consistently described staff as kind. Inspectors saw staff speaking to people respectfully and protecting their privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and staff were kind and caring in their interactions with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's routines, interests and communication needs. Staff, including agency workers, knew people's preferences well.
“People received care that was centred on them as an individual.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
Medicines were stored and administered by trained staff, and the home was visibly clean. Inspectors found that people received their medicines as prescribed.
“Overall medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in exercise, arts and crafts, baking and other activities. Relatives were welcomed and involved in people's lives.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities.” from the report
Late incident notifications
needs fixingThree important incidents had not been reported to CQC as required. The provider submitted them retrospectively and said future notifications would be made promptly.
“During the inspection, we noted that the provider had failed to notify us of three such events that occurred within the service.” from the report
Incomplete and inaccurate records
needs fixingInspectors found gaps or errors in records covering medicines, cream applications, mental capacity assessments and legionella checks. This reduced confidence that the home's monitoring systems were effective.
“some of these records contained missing information or were not accurately completed.” from the report
Weaknesses in quality checks
needs fixingIncidents and accidents were investigated, but the investigations were not always thorough and learning was not consistently applied.
“Whilst incidents and accidents were investigated, these sometimes-lacked robustness and learning from these was not yet being consistently applied.” from the report
Short periods without supervision
needs fixingInspectors saw communal areas left unsupervised for short periods while staff attended to other duties. The provider planned to improve communication and adjust agency shift patterns.
“For short periods of time, the communal areas were left unsupervised whilst staff attended to other tasks or provided support to people in their rooms.” from the report
Staff supervision had fallen behind
minorStaff said they were supported but were not receiving regular formal supervision. The provider introduced a schedule for the following year after the inspection.
“they were not currently receiving regular or formal supervision.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure all serious incidents and accidents are reported to CQC promptly?
- 02How are you now checking medicines records, cream charts, medicines storage temperatures and other care records for gaps or errors?
- 03How do you make sure communal areas remain supervised during busy periods such as handover, mornings and bedtime?
- 04Have falls care plans been completed for everyone who needs one, and how are fluid charts checked and totalled?
- 05How often are staff now receiving formal supervision, and how do you record the support and learning provided?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, using conversations, observations and records; the overall rating remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 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 Freegrove Care Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: Inadequate
- August 2015Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
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.