CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Highfield House Nursing Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Highfield House Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 8 February 2022. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control arrangements and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
The home had safe visiting arrangements, including negative rapid test evidence and temperature checks. Staff used protective equipment correctly, and the home had cleaning schedules, testing arrangements and an up-to-date infection control policy.
The home was experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak during the visit. Inspectors were assured that it was following government guidance on visiting, admissions, protective equipment, testing, hygiene and managing outbreaks.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated score for safe care.
Visitor safety
Visitors had to show evidence of a negative rapid test and have their temperature checked. Posters also reminded people about hand hygiene, distancing and protective equipment.
“Safe arrangements were in place for all visitors to the home.” from the report
Staff use of protective equipment
Staff had infection control training and were observed using the correct protective equipment. Supplies were available throughout the home.
“Staff completed IPC training and were observed to be wearing the correct PPE and following best practice.” from the report
Clean premises
The premises and equipment were visibly clean. Cleaning schedules and audits were used to monitor standards.
“The premises and equipment were visibly clean and regular cleaning schedules and audits were completed to monitor the IPC standards within the home.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Routine testing was in place for people living in the home and staff. Inspectors were assured that the home could prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
“A programme of routine testing for was in place for all people using the service and staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01The report says the home was experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak. Has that outbreak ended, and what actions were taken to manage it?
- 02What impact did COVID-19-related staffing pressures have on care during the outbreak?
- 03How are visitors currently tested and supported to follow infection control arrangements?
- 04How often are people living in the home and staff tested when there is an infection risk?
- 05How are cleaning schedules, audits and protective equipment supplies checked now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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, December 2018
Rated Good overall, but safe care Requires Improvement because some risks were not fully assessed or recorded.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 13 and 21 November 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staffing and other service records, and watched care being provided.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. People were described as receiving kind, personalised care from trained staff, with good support for food, healthcare, activities, communication and end of life wishes.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that some risks, including falls, choking and pressure injuries, were not always fully assessed or recorded. They also found an issue with checking medicine fridge temperatures. The home took action on some of these issues during the inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and dignity, and building warm relationships with people.
“Staff treated people in a kind, compassionate manner and attended to people's needs at a personal level.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, routines and communication needs. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“The new format was well organised and provided comprehensive information to enable staff to deliver care and support in a personalised way.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People received varied meals, support to drink and help with special diets. Staff arranged healthcare appointments and recorded professional advice.
“People were offered varied and nutritious meals which were freshly prepared at the home and alternatives were offered if people did not like the menu options of the day.” from the report
Good leadership and teamwork
The provider and management team were involved and approachable. Staff felt valued, worked well together and could raise concerns.
“Staff were organised, motivated and worked well as a team. They felt fully supported and valued by the registered manager.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities suited to their interests, including music, crafts, outings and community events.
“People had access to a range of activities based on their individual interests, including regular access to the community.” from the report
Risk assessments were incomplete
seriousSome risks were not fully identified or recorded. This included a falls plan that covered only the person's bedroom, even though the person walked around other parts of the home.
“Individual risks to people were not always considered fully or recorded within people's care documentation.” from the report
Movement alarm response
seriousStaff could not tell the difference between one movement alarm and a normal call bell. This meant they did not respond promptly to the person's risk.
“Care staff told us they could not differentiate between this alarm and a usual call bell and therefore did not respond promptly to the person's risk.” from the report
Repositioning records
seriousFor some people at risk of pressure injuries, records did not consistently show that repositioning happened as often as required.
“Where people were at risk of developing pressure injuries and required regular repositioning, this was not always managed or recorded consistently.” from the report
Medicine fridge checks
seriousThe home recorded the fridge temperature twice daily but did not check the maximum and minimum temperatures since the previous reading. Inspectors could not be assured medicines were kept at a safe temperature at all times.
“This meant we could not be assured that the temperature had been safe at all times.” from the report
- 01How do you now identify and record every person's risks, including risks when they are walking around communal areas?
- 02How are staff alerted to movement alarms, and how do you check that they respond promptly?
- 03How do you make sure people at risk of pressure injuries are repositioned at the required intervals and that this is recorded?
- 04How do you monitor medicine fridge temperatures, including the maximum and minimum readings between checks?
- 05Have all staff training gaps identified at the inspection now been completed and kept up to date?
This was an unannounced inspection looking at the overall quality of the care home, including all five key questions and the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 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 Highfield House Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Highfield House Nursing Home →
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Highfield House Nursing Home →
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 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.