CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Holmhurst Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and there were enough suitable staff. Medicines, infection control and risk assessments were managed safely, although recruitment records and incident follow-up were not always complete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, and staff had the skills to support them. Food, drinks and healthcare needs were met, but some training was not refreshed in line with national guidance and supervision records were not always clear.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, patience and respect. People were involved in decisions where they wished and were supported to maintain their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, routines and preferences. People could take part in activities or go out as they wished, and they knew how to complain.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found visible leadership, a friendly atmosphere and regular quality checks. However, the provider acknowledged that incident records did not always show clearly how matters had been followed up.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Holmhurst Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and staff training arrangements needing improvement.
The unannounced inspection took place on 7 June 2023. Two inspectors spoke with seven people, the director and three staff members. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines practice, good food and healthcare support, kind staff and care that reflected people's choices.
The report also found some shortfalls. Recruitment files did not always contain all legally required information. Some training was not refreshed as often as national guidance suggested, and records did not always clearly show follow-up after incidents or regular staff supervision.
The overall Good rating means the home met the CQC standards checked during this inspection. The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published on 3 November 2018. The provider made some improvements during the inspection.
People felt safe
Everyone inspectors spoke with said they felt safe and knew who to speak to if they had a problem. There were sufficient staff to support people safely.
“Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe and did not worry about who to speak to if they had a problem.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw caring and positive relationships. Staff respected people's choices, privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff were caring, compassionate and responded to people with kindness and patience.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and communication needs. People could choose how to spend their time and when to get up or go to bed.
“People's care plans were personalised to meet their needs.” from the report
Good health and food support
People received suitable food and drinks and were helped to access healthcare. Staff followed advice from other health professionals.
“People's dietary needs were met. They were provided with a nutritious and balanced diet that met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
The home had a relaxed, friendly atmosphere. Leaders were visible, and staff appeared supported and engaged.
“This created a welcoming and homely atmosphere for the people supported as well as visitors to the home.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff recruitment files were missing legally required information, including full work histories. The provider said it would obtain the missing information.
“Recruitment files did not always contain all the information legally required.” from the report
Training frequency
needs fixingNot all staff training was refreshed as often as national guidance recommended. The provider said it would change the frequency.
“We found not all of the training frequency was in line with national guidance.” from the report
Supervision records
minorStaff supervision records were clear for the previous year, but it was not always clear how regularly supervision was happening in the current year.
“It was not always clear for the current year how regular staff supervisions were.” from the report
Incident follow-up
needs fixingRecords showed that incidents were investigated, but did not always make the follow-up clear. The provider introduced processes during the inspection to improve this.
“It was not always clear what follow up had taken place.” from the report
- 01Have all staff recruitment files now been completed with the legally required information, including full work histories?
- 02Which staff training is being refreshed more often, and how do you check that staff remain competent?
- 03How often do staff receive supervision now, and where is this recorded?
- 04How are accidents and incidents reviewed, followed up and checked for any lessons?
- 05How do you make sure care plans continue to reflect each person's changing needs and preferences?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control; inspectors observed care, spoke with seven people and reviewed selected care, medicines, recruitment and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 August 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 2022
Holmhurst Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and visiting arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted inspection on 23 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether staffing pressures affected care. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing, managing infection risks and following guidance for visiting. They also found arrangements for people to go out and receive visitors.
The report says the home had external support from health and social care professionals. The registered manager reported that workforce challenges had not affected people's care.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the five areas of care.
Visiting arrangements
The home had arrangements to support visits and outings in line with national guidance and people's care needs.
“Arrangements were in place to ensure people could have visitors and go out in accordance with national guidance.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures covering protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing and infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment effectively and safely.” from the report
Support during the pandemic
The registered manager received regular external professional support and attended weekly meetings about current COVID-19 guidance.
“The registered manager dialled in to weekly virtual meetings for professionals which ensured they were always up to date with current COVID-19 guidance.” from the report
Staffing pressures
The registered manager reported that sector workforce challenges had not affected people's care.
“The registered manager reported no impact on people's care due to sector workforce challenges.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently supporting visits and outings for residents?
- 02How do you currently check that infection prevention and control arrangements remain effective?
- 03Have staffing pressures affected people's care since this inspection?
- 04How do you keep staff and visiting professionals up to date with infection control guidance?
- 05What information can you provide about the areas of care that were not covered by this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 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.
Every inspection of Holmhurst Care Home
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 April 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Southampton
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 £1,350 a week. 39 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.