CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Linkfield Court (Bournemouth) Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong Covid-19 controls, but risk assessments for vulnerable people and staff were not thorough.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 February 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found the home was clean, had PPE available, followed testing and social distancing arrangements, and had plans for managing an outbreak. At the time of the visit, no resident had contracted Covid-19 since April 2020, and all residents had received their first vaccine.
The inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements, but only somewhat assured that the infection control policy was up to date. Risks to people and staff who may have been especially vulnerable to Covid-19 had not been fully assessed and recorded. The home introduced documented risk assessments in response.
Clean environment and PPE
The home was clean and free from clutter. PPE was available in several areas, including bedrooms, bathrooms and the quiet lounge.
“The home was clean and free from clutter. The home had cleaning schedules in place for day to day cleaning.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home provided window visits and a screened visitors' hub. Families could also arrange video calls and telephone relatives without booking.
“The home provided safe and effective ways for people to visit their relatives during the Covid-19 pandemic.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Residents and staff were included in regular Covid-19 testing. The home also had a plan to separate floors and staff if an outbreak occurred.
“The home had a contingency plan in the event of an outbreak of Covid-19 in the home.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessments
needs fixingRisks to people and staff who may have been disproportionately vulnerable to Covid-19 had not been fully assessed and recorded. The provider introduced documented risk assessments after the inspection.
“However, risks to people and staff who may be disproportionately at risk from Covid-19 were not thoroughly assessed and documented.” from the report
- 01Have the infection prevention and control policy and the risk assessments for vulnerable residents and staff been updated since this inspection?
- 02How do you identify and record risks for residents or staff who may be disproportionately affected by Covid-19?
- 03What visiting arrangements are available now, and how are families told about changes?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 05How would you separate residents and staff if there was an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the Covid-19 pandemic; it did not provide a full service assessment or new overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with fewer activities while the activities coordinator post was vacant.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection carried out by one inspector. The inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staffing, recruitment and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect, received personalised care, and were protected from abuse and avoidable risks.
The home had enough appropriately trained staff, safe medicines systems, detailed care plans and effective links with health professionals. People could choose their meals, receive support with eating and drinking, and take part in activities, although fewer activities were happening because the activities coordinator post was vacant.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, patience and respect. People's privacy, dignity and preferred ways of being addressed were supported.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion, and their privacy and dignity was upheld.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and administration records were complete. Staff had guidance for variable-dose and as-required medicines.
“Medication administration records had no gaps in the records, showing people had received their medicines as prescribed by their GP.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, life histories, interests and preferred routines. Relatives were involved appropriately in planning care.
“People had an individualised care plan that reflected their individual needs.” from the report
Choice at mealtimes
People could choose between meals or ask for an alternative. Staff supported people patiently and at their own pace when they needed help eating.
“People were able to choose from two main meals and if neither of these appealed to them, an alternative of omelette or sandwiches were also provided.” from the report
Dementia training
The managers had invested in specialist dementia training for all staff. Staff said this improved their understanding of the people they supported.
“All staff were being provided with specialist dementia care training.” from the report
Reduced activities
needs fixingThere were fewer activities than usual because the activities coordinator post was vacant. Volunteers helped with some activities and outings.
“There was a vacancy for an activities coordinator at the time of this inspection and so there were not as many activities taking place as there would be normally.” from the report
Mental capacity assessments being improved
minorThe managers were working to make mental capacity assessments more specific, following a recommendation from a recent monitoring visit.
“The registered managers were working on making mental capacity assessments more specific as recommended at a recent commissioner's monitoring visit.” from the report
- 01Has the activities coordinator post been filled, and what activities are currently available each week?
- 02How are activities and one-to-one time provided for people while that post is vacant?
- 03How have mental capacity assessments been made more specific since the recent monitoring recommendation?
- 04How will you involve our relative and our family in reviewing the care plan?
- 05How do you check that medicines, including as-required medicines, are given and recorded safely?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the report also says the overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 July 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 Linkfield Court (Bournemouth) Limited
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Linkfield Court (Bournemouth) Limited →
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Linkfield Court (Bournemouth) Limited →
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.