CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Harry Sotnick House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People received medicines as prescribed, risks were assessed and managed, and inspectors found suitable safeguarding, staffing and infection control systems. One safeguarding concern had not been notified to CQC because the manager thought another organisation had done so.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and supported, and the home worked well with healthcare professionals. Some training courses had not been completed by all staff, although inspectors found staff were knowledgeable.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect, although inspectors saw two occasions where private information was discussed in front of others.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's needs and preferences. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, complaints and sensitive end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People, relatives and staff were positive about the management team, but quality assurance systems had not identified all concerns. Records about duty of candour, medicines and some Mental Capacity Act decisions needed improvement.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home's leadership and quality records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 and 11 May 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records. They also checked infection control.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people received their medicines, risks were managed, staffing and infection control were suitable, and people received kind, respectful and personalised care.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Quality checks had not found every concern, and records about duty of candour, some medicines and some capacity decisions needed improvement. Managers acted promptly when inspectors raised issues, and the overall service rating was Good.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed and that risks linked to people's health and support needs were assessed and managed.
“People had their medicines as prescribed and they were available to them in a timely manner.” from the report
Stable staffing
The home had recruited permanent staff, reducing reliance on agency workers. Inspectors found the recruitment checks were safe.
“The provider had successfully recruited permanent staff which meant the use of agency staff had significantly decreased.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw staff speaking politely and found that people were involved in decisions about their care.
“People and relatives were positive about the care people received and told us staff were caring.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People were supported to maintain relationships and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People were supported by staff who had a good understanding of their care and support needs and their personal preferences.” from the report
Good end-of-life support
Inspectors found that people received compassionate and sensitive care at the end of their lives, based on their wishes.
“People received compassionate and sensitive care from staff at the end of their lives.” from the report
Quality checks missed some issues
needs fixingThe home's quality assurance systems did not identify every concern. Inspectors recommended better checks of records and the quality and safety of care.
“The provider's quality assurance systems were not fully effective in identifying all concerns in the service.” from the report
Duty of candour records
needs fixingPeople and relatives were kept informed when care did not go to plan, but the required records were not always complete.
“However, records were not always kept in line with this regulation.” from the report
Privacy
needs fixingInspectors saw two occasions when staff discussed people's private information in front of others. Managers said they would take action.
“However, we observed two instances where staff spoke about people's private information in front of others.” from the report
One missed safeguarding notification
needs fixingOne safeguarding concern had not been reported to CQC because the manager believed another organisation had notified CQC. The manager said this would be corrected in future.
“We noted one safeguarding concern which had not been notified to CQC however, this was because the registered manager thought it had been notified by another organisation.” from the report
Some training incomplete
minorSome staff had not completed all training courses. The manager said courses were being booked again after pandemic-related priorities.
“We noted some courses had not been completed by all staff.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to quality checks so that medicine, Mental Capacity Act and duty of candour issues are found promptly?
- 02How do you now record and review what happens when something goes wrong and the family must be kept informed?
- 03How do you ensure every safeguarding concern is notified to CQC and the local authority when required?
- 04Which staff training courses were incomplete at the inspection, and have all staff now completed them?
- 05How will staffing be maintained when the discharge to assess unit is full?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of this newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 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, January 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements in the Gunwharf unit.
This was a targeted inspection of the 20-bed Gunwharf unit. It was planned for use as a designated setting for people who had tested positive for COVID-19 in hospital and were medically fit for discharge.
Inspectors found strong infection control arrangements. Visitors were screened, PPE was available, staff had weekly COVID-19 testing, and enhanced cleaning was in place. The unit was arranged to support social distancing, and staff had training in using PPE.
The home was inspected but not rated. The inspection looked at infection prevention and control only, rather than the full range of care and management arrangements. The report says the provider would not use the allocated unit as a designated care setting.
Visitor screening
Visitors were checked for symptoms, had their temperature recorded and were given guidance on PPE and social distancing.
“All visitors were screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection before being allowed to enter the home, a health questionnaire was being used.” from the report
Staff testing and training
Staff had weekly COVID-19 testing and training in infection prevention and the safe use of PPE.
“Staff had access to weekly testing for Covid-19.” from the report
Cleaning and layout
The unit had enhanced cleaning, wipe-clean furnishings and enough space to support social distancing.
“Enhanced cleaning schedules including regular cleaning of high touch areas such as handrails and door handles were in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control arrangements are now used in the part of the home where my relative would live?
- 02How are visitors screened and supported to use PPE and maintain social distancing?
- 03How often are staff tested for COVID-19, and what happens after a positive result?
- 04How do you check PPE supplies and make sure staff use PPE correctly?
- 05What changed after the decision not to use the Gunwharf unit as a designated care setting?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control in the Gunwharf unit only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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.
Every inspection of Harry Sotnick House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 April 2020.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of Portsmouth
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 £1,240 a week. 38 can care for a couple. 10 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.