CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Highgrove Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found the home safe and well-led, with enough staff and effective checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 January 2023. One inspector spoke with four people, four relatives and seven staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing was sufficient, medicines were managed safely, and infection control arrangements were effective.
Inspectors also found strong management oversight. Audits had action plans that were followed up, people's and relatives' views were sought, and the home worked well with health and social care professionals.
The last inspection rating was Good, published in March 2018. This inspection only rated Safe and Well-led, so there are no new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive in this report.
Staffing and continuity
Inspectors found enough staff on duty. Many staff had worked at the home for a long time, which supported continuity of care.
“There were enough staff on duty, people told us when they needed them, staff were there.” from the report
Risk management
Care and support risks were recorded in detail and reviewed monthly or when people's needs changed. Staff discussed risks during daily handovers and meetings.
“Risk assessments were detailed; staff understood the risks and knew people well.” from the report
Medicines safety
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff giving medicines had training and competency checks.
“Staff checked people's medicines with their MAR to ensure the correct medicine was given to the correct person at the right time.” from the report
Management checks
The provider and managers used several audits to monitor safety and quality. Actions were followed up and completed.
“Each audit had a clear action plan which had been followed up and completed.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention measures, including safe visiting, use of protective equipment and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you work out the staffing level needed for my relative's individual needs?
- 02How often will my relative's risk assessments be reviewed, and what happens if their needs change?
- 03How will you check that my relative's medicines are given correctly and that any discrepancies are acted on?
- 04What infection control and visiting arrangements are currently in place?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in surveys, meetings and decisions about improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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, March 2018
Highgrove Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found caring, well-organised care, but identified gaps in catheter and medicines records.
The inspection took place over three days in January 2018. It began without warning and continued with announced visits. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, managers and visiting health professionals. They also reviewed care files, staff records, medicines records, complaints, audits and the building.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, clean surroundings and staff who understood safeguarding and people's risks.
People and families described staff as kind and friendly. Care plans reflected people's needs, choices and life histories. Inspectors found good support with food, healthcare, activities, communication, dignity and end-of-life wishes. Some catheter records did not show that care had happened regularly, and medicines records did not always show exact times. Managers reviewed these processes during the inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“People were supported by enough staff to keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as caring and friendly. Inspectors saw warm interactions and respect for people's privacy, dignity and choices.
“We observed friendly, warm interactions between people, their families and the staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, life stories and communication methods. Staff understood what mattered to people.
“People had care plans which reflected their personal care needs and choices and were reviewed at least monthly.” from the report
Good leadership and improvement
The home had visible leadership, teamwork and regular audits. Inspectors found that learning led to changes in care.
“The service had a strong focus on learning which supported good practice.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People's eating and drinking needs were understood, with choices and suitable support. People had timely access to health professionals.
“People had their eating and drinking needs understood by both the care and catering teams.” from the report
Catheter care records
seriousRecords did not consistently show that catheter bags were checked and changed as required. Inspectors said this created a risk of discomfort and infection, and the process was changed during the inspection.
“Records did not confirm that bags were being changed weekly. This meant people were at risk of avoidable discomfort and infection.” from the report
Medicine timing records
needs fixingSome records used general parts of the day instead of exact administration times for as-needed paracetamol. This created a risk that the required four-hour gap would not be followed.
“the administration record showed a pre populated am, pm, evening, night time rather than the exact times administered which meant there was a risk of the four hour gap not being met.” from the report
Family involvement in reviews
needs fixingA formal process for involving people and families in care planning and reviews was not yet in place. The provider said a new form was due to be introduced.
“A formal process for involving people and families in planning and reviewing care and support was not in place but due to be implemented.” from the report
Access to the first floor
minorThe first floor could only be reached by stairs or a stair lift. Inspectors noted that some people with mobility restrictions would not be able to live there.
“This meant that people some people with mobility restrictions would be unable to live on the first floor.” from the report
- 01How are catheter checks and weekly catheter bag changes recorded and checked now?
- 02How do you record the exact time that as-needed medicines are given?
- 03Has the formal process for involving people and families in care planning and reviews been introduced?
- 04Which bedrooms and facilities are accessible for someone who cannot manage stairs?
- 05How are changes in people's care needs shared with all staff between shifts?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 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 Highgrove Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
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
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.