CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Guildford House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Fire safety and infection control arrangements were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission. Staff received training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink and access to healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and person-centred. People had choices about activities, received one-to-one support if needed and could raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive atmosphere and systems to monitor quality, incidents, medicines, care records and call bell response times. The manager was described as visible and approachable.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Guildford House Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care across all five areas.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 17, 19 and 28 April 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records and recruitment files.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable care plans and good access to healthcare. People were supported to make choices and maintain their independence.
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. The home offered activities, including one-to-one support, and listened to complaints and feedback. The report says this was the first inspection of the newly registered service.
Safe medicines
Medicines were received, stored and given safely. Records included important information such as allergies, preferences and guidance for medicines taken when needed.
“People's medicines were received, stored and administered safely.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care records included people's needs, preferences and instructions for staff. Families were involved in developing care plans.
“People's care records were detailed, person-centred and gave staff the instructions needed to appropriately support the individual.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered group and individual activities. People could choose not to attend, while those staying in their rooms were offered alternatives.
“Where people wished to remain in their rooms, they were offered alternative activities on a one-to-one basis to reduce the risk of social isolation.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used audits and reviews to monitor care, medicines, safety and call bell response times. Inspectors saw that identified issues were followed up.
“The provider had undertaken audits of call bell waiting times, infection prevention and control, care records and health and safety.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current staffing level on each floor and how is it changed when people's needs increase?
- 02What were the longest recent call bell waiting times, and what action was taken when waits were too long?
- 03Have all staff who were overdue refresher training now completed it?
- 04Has the manager's application to become the registered manager been completed?
- 05Have the fire doors identified for replacement now been replaced?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; it was the first inspection of the newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 2023 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, December 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the home needed to improve staff deployment and leadership systems.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 November 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records. They also checked infection prevention measures.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were treated with dignity and kindness, received personalised care, had access to healthcare and activities, and were supported safely with medicines, eating and drinking and infection control.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. On the dementia floor, staff deployment did not always give people enough social and emotional interaction. Some call bells took a long time to answer, despite daily checks. End of life care plans were also not always detailed.
The overall rating stayed Good, but the well-led rating fell from Good at the previous inspection. The provider was recommended to review staff deployment so call bells are answered promptly and people's social, emotional and psychological needs are met consistently.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed gentle and thoughtful interactions. People and relatives said staff were caring, respectful and genuinely understood them.
“People and their relatives were extremely positive regarding the care and support provided.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's health needs, histories, preferences and communication needs. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“People received personalised care that met their needs and respected their preferences.” from the report
Safe care and treatment
Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely and staff followed guidance for falls, nutrition, choking and infection control.
“Medicines administration records (MAR charts) demonstrated that people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Support at the end of life
Staff provided end of life care with compassion and respected people's comfort, cultural and religious needs. Relatives and friends were also supported.
“End of life care was provided in a dignified and respectful way.” from the report
Staff deployment
needs fixingOn the dementia floor, staff were not always deployed in a way that supported people's social, emotional and psychological needs. Some people spent periods with little interaction apart from television.
“Ineffective deployment of staff meant people's social and psychological needs were not always met.” from the report
Call bell delays
needs fixingSome call bells took more than five or ten minutes to answer, and one person was reported to have waited 20 minutes. Daily audits identified delays, but the actions taken were not consistently clear.
“Daily audits found that on a daily basis, a number of call bells were taking longer than 10 minutes to answer.” from the report
End of life care plans
minorEnd of life plans were not always detailed enough and sometimes did not record what was important to the person. The management team said this was an area they were working on.
“However, end of life care plans were not always detailed and sometimes lacked information on what was important to the person.” from the report
- 01What has changed on the dementia floor to make sure people receive regular social, emotional and psychological support?
- 02What are the current call bell response times, and what happens when a call takes longer than five or ten minutes?
- 03How will staff deployment be adjusted during busy periods and when activities are taking place elsewhere in the home?
- 04How are end of life wishes recorded, including what matters most to each person, and how often are these plans reviewed?
- 05How will you monitor whether the improvements recommended by the inspectors have been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control measures; the report also compares the ratings with the previous inspection in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 December 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.
Every inspection of Guildford House Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2021GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 August 2017.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.