CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Friary House
Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
The inspection took place on 25 March 2021 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection during the COVID-19 pandemic, focused on infection prevention and control in the home.
Inspectors found good practice. Staff used personal protective equipment properly, had enough supplies, followed testing and isolation arrangements, and supported people to keep contact with family and friends.
The inspectors were assured about preventing infections, visiting arrangements, admissions, testing, hygiene, outbreak planning and the infection control policy. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a usual overall quality rating.
Infection prevention
Staff wore PPE correctly and there were sufficient supplies and safe facilities for putting it on and removing it.
“PPE stations were located throughout the building and there were facilities to remove PPE safely.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
People and staff took part in whole-home testing, and the home had plans to reduce cross-infection if someone tested positive.
“Contingency planning included the cohorting of staff to reduce the chances of cross infection if anyone living in the home tested positive.” from the report
Contact with loved ones
During isolation, staff made additional visits and supported people to use telephone and video calls with family and friends.
“People were also supported with telephone and video calls with friends and loved ones.” from the report
Oversight of infection control
The manager used infection control audits and action plans to follow up any required improvements.
“Infection prevention and control audits took place and action plans were developed to follow up on any required actions.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently planned to reduce the risk of infection?
- 02How do you support people who need to isolate to stay in contact with family and friends?
- 03How often are infection prevention and control audits carried out, and what actions are still open?
- 04What is the current plan if a resident or staff member tests positive?
- 05Who provides nursing care, and how is this coordinated with the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 April 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, June 2018
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors carried out a comprehensive inspection over 3 and 4 May 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and quality checks.
They found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines management, reviewed risk assessments and a clean, well-maintained home. Staff understood safeguarding, consent and how to support people who could not make particular decisions.
People described staff as kind, respectful and unhurried. The home supported choice, independence, activities and contact with health professionals. The overall rating stayed Good, and Effective improved to Good because earlier recording problems under the Mental Capacity Act had been resolved.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were consistently described and observed as kind, friendly, respectful and unhurried.
“Throughout the inspection we saw staff demonstrating a kind and caring approach towards people.” from the report
Safe staffing
The home used a monthly dependency check to make sure staffing levels matched people's needs. Inspectors also saw staff respond promptly to call bells.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs. A dependency tool was used monthly to ensure that staffing levels continued to match people's needs.” from the report
Personal choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care, clothing, food, activities and daily routines. Staff encouraged people to keep doing what they could for themselves.
“People were supported to have choice and had care in line with what they needed and wanted.” from the report
Effective health support
The home worked closely with health professionals, including regular visits from a GP and nurse practitioner. This helped staff respond to health needs.
“The home had developed a good working relationship with the local district nursing team.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What was the outcome of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications that were awaiting a decision at the inspection?
- 02Has the planned replacement lift been installed, and what arrangements are in place if the current lift stops working?
- 03How do you currently check that staffing levels match people's changing needs?
- 04How do you support people living with dementia to make decisions and give consent?
- 05How are people's end-of-life wishes recorded and kept up to date?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the overall Good rating had not changed since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 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 Friary House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 April 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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.