CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ivydene
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The inspection looked at infection prevention and control. Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Ivydene was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control measures during a targeted COVID-19 inspection.
Inspectors visited the home on 12 February 2021. The announced inspection was targeted at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found visitors were given personal protective equipment, the layout had been changed to support social distancing, and staff helped people understand pandemic-related risks. Staff also supported people to keep in contact with loved ones and have social opportunities.
Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. They found the home was visibly clean, had suitable cleaning schedules, and had effective systems for providing staff with personal protective equipment. The service was inspected but not rated.
Visitor safety
Visitors received an infection control pack with personal protective equipment and a pen to reduce the risk of spreading infection through shared equipment.
“Visitors are provided with an infection prevention and control (IPC) pack upon entering the service.” from the report
Safer layout
The home changed its furniture layout to support social distancing and created a safer area for visitors to enter.
“The provider had made adaptions to the layout of the service to promote good IPC practice.” from the report
Support during restrictions
Staff helped people understand social distancing, personal protective equipment and testing. They also helped people keep in touch with loved ones and access social opportunities.
“Staff had worked to minimise the impact of the pandemic on people's wellbeing.” from the report
Cleanliness and supplies
Inspectors found the home visibly clean, with cleaning schedules covering frequently touched areas and suitable supplies of personal protective equipment.
“The service was visibly clean. There were effective cleaning schedules in place, which identified where frequently touched areas needed additional cleaning.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the infection prevention and control arrangements described in this report being maintained now?
- 02Are visitors still given the equipment and information needed to enter safely?
- 03How do you currently support people to keep in contact with their loved ones and have social opportunities?
- 04What are the home's current ratings or findings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, which were not assessed in this inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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, December 2017
Ivydene: Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some medicine recording and activity issues.
Inspectors visited on 4 and 6 October 2017 without giving advance notice. They spoke with people, a relative, managers and staff. They reviewed care plans, staff files, complaints, incidents, medicines and quality checks. They also observed care.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities and could accommodate up to eight. Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, support with health needs, respectful care and detailed care plans.
The home had been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in June 2016. Inspectors had then found five breaches of care regulations and one registration breach. At this inspection, they found that improvements had been made and the requirements had been met.
Improved safety
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed. Staff knew how to respond to incidents and people told inspectors they felt safe.
“At this inspection we found that action had been taken and the requirements of these regulations had been met.” from the report
Respectful care
Staff were described as kind, patient and respectful. They supported people to make choices and protected their privacy.
“Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and patient in their approach.” from the report
Support with health
Staff worked with people and health professionals to help people attend appointments, including when people were anxious or routines needed careful planning.
“Staff were pro-active in ensuring that people had access to healthcare services when required.” from the report
Medicine record error
needs fixingOne person's medicine record had a stock-count discrepancy and a missing administration entry on the morning of the inspection. The manager investigated the issue and checked the staff member's competence.
“One person's record had discrepancies in the stock count and a missing record of administration from the morning of inspection.” from the report
Activities were not always encouraged
needs fixingPeople had access to activities, but inspectors saw some occasions when staff did not actively encourage activities if none had been planned.
“However, we did see some examples were staff were not always pro-active in encouraging people with activities if no set activity was planned.” from the report
Limited garden access
minorOnly the patio was accessible because the steps to the main garden were steep. There were no plans at the time to make the main garden more accessible.
“At the time of inspection, there were no plans in place to make this space more accessible.” from the report
Training still being completed
needs fixingThe provider had changed its induction programme, but some staff had not yet completed all mandatory training during the inspection.
“The provider had recently changed its training induction and some staff were still in the process of completing their mandatory training at the time of inspection.” from the report
- 01How do you now check medicine stock counts and make sure every administration is recorded?
- 02What activities are offered when there is no planned activity, and how do staff make sure people are encouraged to take part?
- 03Has access to the main garden been improved since this inspection?
- 04Have all staff now completed the mandatory training required for their roles?
- 05What changes have been made to make sure the problems found at the June 2016 inspection do not happen again?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five quality areas; the previous inspection in June 2016 had rated the home Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 2017 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 Ivydene
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 2014.
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.