CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ivelhurst Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about PPE, testing, admissions, visitor controls and managing outbreaks. They were only somewhat assured about cleaning, the layout of the home and social distancing, although the management reported improvements after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Ivelhurst Nursing Home: infection control was mostly in place, but inspectors found some problems with cleaning and social distancing; the service was inspected but not rated.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 11 February 2021. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak in part of the home.
Inspectors found staff using suitable personal protective equipment, testing was available, and the two buildings were being kept separate. People appeared comfortable around staff, and alternative contact methods were available while visits were stopped.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about cleaning, the layout of the home and social distancing. Some high-touch areas, communal slings and visors needed more cleaning, and people were not always seated far enough apart in the dining room. The management told inspectors these issues had been corrected after the visit.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a full rating for the quality of care or the other inspection areas.
Protective equipment
Staff were using appropriate protective equipment, including visors in one part of the home. People appeared happy and comfortable around staff.
“People appeared happy and comfortable in the presence of staff who were all wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Separating infection risks
The two buildings were separated during the outbreak, with different staff teams and entrances.
“Systems were in place to separate the two buildings whilst some people had tested COVID-19 positive.” from the report
Testing and visitor controls
The home had systems for visitor testing and testing people living there and staff. Visits had stopped at the time, with phone and video calls offered instead.
“Systems were in place for visitors which included testing.” from the report
Vaccination
People living in the home had received their first COVID-19 vaccination by the time of the inspection.
“People had received their first COVID-19 vaccination.” from the report
Dining-room distance
needs fixingPeople were not always seated at a safe distance during meals because of the table sizes. The management said this was changed after the inspection.
“During meal times social distancing had not always been followed in the dining room due to table sizes.” from the report
Cleaning frequency
needs fixingInspectors found that cleaning of high-touch points, communal slings and visors needed to increase because of the new COVID-19 variant. The management later reported adding cleaning staff and making changes.
“However, some improvements were required to increase cleaning of high touch points, communal slings and visors.” from the report
- 01How are high-touch points, communal slings and visors cleaned now, and how is this checked?
- 02How do you make sure people are seated at a safe distance during meals?
- 03What arrangements are in place if there is another COVID-19 outbreak?
- 04How are visitors tested and supported to keep in touch if visits have to stop?
- 05Can you show me the latest full CQC ratings or explain which areas were not covered by this inspection?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Ivelhurst Nursing Home was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some limits around activities.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced, one-day inspection on 27 February 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health care professional. They also checked care plans, medicine records, staff files, rotas, training records, complaints and safety checks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training, detailed risk assessments and safe medicines systems. People received personalised care and were supported to access health care.
People described staff as kind, respectful and helpful. The home supported people's choices, privacy, dignity and independence. Inspectors found that the manager and staff listened to concerns, checked the quality of care and learned from issues.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was published in September 2016. Good means the inspection found the service met the required standards in the areas checked, although it was not without areas that could be improved.
Safe care and staffing
The home had enough staff and checked new staff before they started work. Risk assessments, safeguarding training and medicine systems helped protect people from avoidable harm.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect. Staff knew people's individual needs and protected their privacy and dignity.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's physical and emotional needs, likes and dislikes. Staff knew these plans and supported people to make choices and remain independent.
“People's care plans included clear information for staff about the support they required to meet both their physical and emotional needs.” from the report
Activity information
minorThe daily activity information was not available in people's rooms, which could make it harder for people to choose what to do. The manager said they would look at ways to improve this.
“However, the information to enable people to choose daily was not made available in their rooms.” from the report
Afternoon activities
minorThe activities worker also worked in the care team during the afternoon. Staff still engaged people, but inspectors found the afternoon activities had less atmosphere than those in the morning.
“Staff continued to engage people in an activity but there was not the same atmosphere as the morning.” from the report
Opportunities to go out
minorSome people said they would like to go out more. The home tried to bring outdoor experiences indoors when people could not go out.
“Some people told us they would like to go out more.” from the report
- 01How do residents see the daily and weekly activities timetable now?
- 02How many activities are led in the afternoon, and who is available to run them?
- 03What opportunities are there for residents to go out, including those who need help or use a wheelchair?
- 04How will you make sure activities reflect each resident's interests and choices?
- 05How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient at different times of day?
This was an unannounced, one-day inspection covering all five rating areas; both the premises and the care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 May 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 Ivelhurst Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.