CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Homefield House Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about COVID-19 infection control, testing, protective equipment and outbreak planning. They found that a thermometer was not reading correctly and asked for it to be calibrated and checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Audits and provider oversight were in place, and staff and relatives spoke positively about the deputy manager. There was no registered manager, some improvement actions were overdue, and the bed rail assessment template needed to be clearer.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; the previous Good rating remained, with strong COVID-19 controls and some management actions still to complete.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 30 October 2020. Inspectors looked at risks linked to the registered manager leaving, manual handling and infection control during COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that infection control measures were strong. Staff had training and enough protective equipment. People and staff were tested, and the home had plans for isolation and outbreaks.
The home did not have a registered manager. The deputy manager was running the home with support from the provider, which was recruiting to fill the vacancy. Audits were in place, but some improvement actions were overdue.
This inspection did not give new ratings. The previous overall rating of Good remained. Safe and well-led were both recorded as inspected but not rated because only specific areas were checked.
COVID-19 controls
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable infection control measures, protective equipment, testing and plans for managing an outbreak.
“We were assured that infection control measures in place reduced the risks to people from COVID-19.” from the report
Moving and handling risks
The risk assessments reviewed for manual handling and falls were judged appropriate and in line with good practice.
“We reviewed people's risk assessments related to manual handling and falls. These were appropriate and reflected best practice.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff said they felt supported and received regular supervision. Relatives said they had confidence in the management of the home.
“Staff told us they felt supported and fed back positively about the deputy manager.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives said they were involved in care and support planning and were kept informed about COVID-19 policies and the home's status.
“All relatives said they felt involved in their loved ones' care, and were confident in the current management of the home.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the inspection. The deputy manager was acting in the role with provider support while recruitment continued.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Overdue improvement actions
needs fixingThe service improvement plan contained actions that were overdue and needed follow-up. The provider said the plan would be reviewed and updated.
“There were some overdue actions on the service improvement plan which required follow-up.” from the report
Thermometer checking
needs fixingA thermometer was not reading correctly. The provider was asked to make sure thermometers were calibrated and checked according to the manufacturer's guidance.
“We identified that the thermometer was not reading correctly and advised the provider to ensure the thermometer was appropriately calibrated and checked in lie with manufacturers guidance.” from the report
Bed rail records
minorInspectors said the bed rail assessment template and the final decision could be clearer for staff. The provider agreed to review the template.
“We identified that the template used for bed rails assessments and the final decision could be clearer for staff.” from the report
- 01Who is the registered manager now, and what support is available to the home while that role is filled?
- 02Have all the overdue actions on the service improvement plan now been completed?
- 03How often are thermometers calibrated and checked, and what records can you show us?
- 04Has the bed rail assessment template been reviewed so that staff can clearly record the decision?
- 05How will you keep relatives informed about changes in people's wellbeing and the home's COVID-19 arrangements?
This was a targeted inspection of specific risks linked to the manager leaving, manual handling and infection control; it did not assess the full Safe or Well-led key questions, so the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 December 2020 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, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some medicine stock checks and care records needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 09 July 2019 and 22 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was supporting 23 people and could support up to 24. Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, received appropriate medicines and healthcare, and were supported by kind and respectful staff.
Inspectors found two areas being improved. There were frequent differences in medicine stock figures during weekly checks, although this had not affected people receiving medicines as prescribed. Some care records were out of date or lacked detail about people's histories and interests. The provider had started daily medicine checks and was improving the care records.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as friendly and caring. Inspectors observed staff comforting people and protecting their dignity.
“All of the people and relatives we spoke to confirmed they were always treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Safe care
Staff understood safeguarding and people's risks. Incidents and falls were investigated and reviewed for patterns.
“Incidents and accidents were thoroughly investigated and acted upon.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff received induction, regular supervision and training. Inspectors found the mandatory training was up to date.
“The training matrix confirmed that the provider's mandatory training was up to date.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could take part in activities they enjoyed, with support for interests outside the home and contact with relatives and visitors.
“The activities coordinator told us they would try to facilitate any activities people wanted to do.” from the report
Positive leadership
People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management. Audits were used to identify and act on improvements.
“There was a culture of continuous learning within the service.” from the report
Medicine stock records
needs fixingWeekly medicine stock checks often did not match the actual stock. Daily checks were introduced after the inspection, and inspectors said people had still received their medicines as prescribed.
“We found there were frequent discrepancies in the number of medicines in stock when stock checks took place on a weekly basis.” from the report
Care records needed updating
needs fixingSome care records were out of date and did not contain enough information about people's personal histories and interests. The provider was improving and archiving the records.
“Some of the records were out of date and required archiving.” from the report
- 01How are daily medicine stock checks carried out now, and have any further discrepancies been found?
- 02Have all care records been updated with each person's history, interests and preferences?
- 03How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans?
- 04What activities are available for someone with particular hobbies or interests?
- 05How are falls and other incidents reviewed, and what changes have been made as a result?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided; the report says the Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement, while the other four question ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 2019 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 Homefield House Nursing Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Homefield House Nursing Home →
- September 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Homefield House Nursing Home →
- August 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 August 2018.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 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.