CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Godfrey Olsen House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including visits, PPE, testing, safe admissions and outbreak management. They were only somewhat assured about the premises' layout and hygiene practices, the currency of the infection-control policy, the bathroom and contaminated-waste arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements, but noted some premises and records needed attention.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected people.
The home had arrangements for safe visits. Its four independent flats helped with social distancing, and people were involved in understanding and managing COVID-19 risks. Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including PPE, testing, admissions and managing outbreaks.
There were some shortfalls. One bathroom needed a deep clean, there was no lockable external bin for contaminated waste, and the infection-control policy and some COVID-19 risk assessments were not fully up to date or documented.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Safe visiting
The home had arrangements to allow families and visiting professionals to visit safely.
“There were arrangements in place for people's families and visiting professionals to safely visit the home.” from the report
Separate living areas
The four independent flats supported social distancing between people living at the home.
“The service was divided into four independent flats which facilitated better social distancing between people living at the home.” from the report
People involved in safety
People were involved in risk assessments and understood how to keep themselves safe from COVID-19 risks.
“The provider ensured people were involved in risk assessment process and understood how to keep themselves safe from risks in relation to COVID-19.” from the report
Most infection controls in place
Inspectors were assured about the home's arrangements for visitors, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines.” from the report
Bathroom and waste arrangements
needs fixingOne bathroom needed a deep clean, and the home did not yet have a lockable external bin for contaminated waste. The provider said the unused specialist bath would be removed and an appropriate bin was on order.
“We found the provider did not have a lockable external waste bin, which could be secured, to store contaminated waste until it was collected.” from the report
- 01Has the bathroom with the stained specialist bath been deep cleaned, and has the unused bath been removed?
- 02Is the lockable external waste bin now in place for contaminated waste?
- 03Has the infection prevention and control policy been updated?
- 04Have all COVID-19 risk assessments been fully documented?
- 05How are current visiting arrangements and COVID-19 safety measures explained to families?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide an overall rating or ratings for the other care questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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, September 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found improvements in safety, staff support and management, but staffing for activities could be stronger.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 04 August 2020. One inspector visited, spoke with the registered manager and a staff member, looked around the home and checked care, staffing, medicines, fire safety and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that fire safety work had been completed, medicines systems were safer, staff recruitment and training were appropriate, and care risks were reviewed.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published on 3 July 2019, with breaches of regulations 12, 15 and 17. This inspection found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Fire safety improved
The fire safety problems identified at the previous inspection had been addressed. Inspectors saw evidence that the relevant work had been completed.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Safer medicines systems
Staff had medicines training and competency checks. Records showed that fridge temperatures were monitored and action was taken when temperatures became too high.
“Records viewed demonstrated staff had monitored the fridge temperatures and had taken action when the temperature had become too high.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had completed an induction, received training and had improved access to supervision and development. The report says staff felt supported.
“Staff commented they felt supported in their role and told us they could access training and guidance if they needed it.” from the report
More staff for activities
needs fixingStaff said that additional staff would help people receive more individual support with activities, days out and a more personal approach. This was a staffing shortfall, although the overall Safe rating was Good.
“Extra staff is required to give a more personal approach to allow activities to be completed” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally available for individual activities and days out, and what happens when extra cover is needed?
- 02Which building maintenance works are still outstanding, and when are they expected to be completed?
- 03How do you check that care plans, risk assessments and medicines records remain current and that audit actions are completed?
- 04How do you gather feedback from people living at the home and their relatives, given that inspectors could not obtain feedback during this visit?
This was an unannounced re-inspection following the previous Requires Improvement rating; the report gives ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led, but not Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 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 Godfrey Olsen House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 April 2018.
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.