CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Marchfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, carrying out testing, following social distancing and hygiene measures, and managing infection risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not provide findings or a rating for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not provide findings or a rating for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not provide findings or a rating for Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not provide findings or a rating for Well-led.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured the home had effective Covid-19 infection control measures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 23 February 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found the home clean and free from clutter. PPE was available, cleaning schedules and infection control audits were in place, and staff received extra infection control training.
The home had arrangements for testing, staff isolation, outbreak management and visiting relatives safely. Inspectors were assured that infection control measures were being followed.
The home and its Safe question were inspected but not rated. This report does not provide a full overall quality rating.
Clean and prepared environment
The home was clean and free from clutter. PPE and handwashing guidance were available throughout the home.
“The home was free from clutter and clean.” from the report
Safe family visits
The home offered window visits and a screened visitors' hub, with a booking system for families.
“The home provided effective and safe ways for people to visit their relatives during the Covid-19 pandemic.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
Residents and staff were tested regularly. The home had plans to separate areas and manage a possible outbreak.
“The home had a contingency plan in the event of an outbreak of Covid-19 in the home.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received extra infection prevention and control training so they understood what to do if people became unwell.
“Staff had received additional infection prevention and control (IPC) and Covid-19 training” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How can families visit relatives now, and are window or screened visits still available?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested if there is an infection concern?
- 04What happens if someone living in the home or a member of staff tests positive?
- 05How are people living with dementia supported if they become anxious about staff wearing PPE?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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, June 2018
Marchfield House is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some medicines and records issues needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 02 June 2018. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care files, medicine records, staff records, policies and quality checks. They also observed care and a mealtime.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicine systems, kind care and personalised support. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and access healthcare.
There were some minor shortfalls. The administration time for one person's time-critical medicine had not been recorded, and the medicines cupboard had sometimes been warmer than recommended. Some mental capacity paperwork and end of life preferences were not fully recorded. The home said it would address these points.
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and professionals said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful conversations, privacy being protected and support for people's independence.
“During the inspection there was a calm and welcoming atmosphere in the home, punctuated with moments of singing and laughter.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were reviewed against people's needs. Relatives and staff said there were enough staff and that care was not rushed.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, life histories and important relationships. Staff knew how people communicated and supported their individual choices.
“Care plans were available to staff, up to date, regularly reviewed and audited by the management to ensure they reflected people's individual needs, preferences and outcomes.” from the report
Good leadership and checks
Management was described as approachable and involved. Audits covered care plans, staff, infection control, medicines and equipment, with actions taken when needed.
“Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place and up to date.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health professionals and other organisations. Inspectors found that advice was accepted and information was shared with staff.
“The service worked in partnership with other agencies to provide good care and treatment to people.” from the report
Time-critical medicine record
needs fixingThe administration times for one person's time-critical medicine had not been recorded. The manager addressed this on the inspection day and put a safer system in place.
“We did however find that times of administration were not recorded for one person who was on time critical medicine.” from the report
Medicines cupboard temperature
needs fixingThe medicines storage temperature had recently been as high as 28.3 degrees centigrade. The manager said a fan would be arranged because some medicines may become ineffective above 25 degrees.
“This was an issue as some medicines could become ineffective if stored over 25 degrees centigrade.” from the report
Incomplete best interest records
minorMental capacity records were up to date but not always fully complete. Some best interest meeting records did not include each decision maker in the outcome section.
“Capacity had been assessed however best interest meetings hadn't always included each decision maker in the outcome section.” from the report
- 01How do you now record and check the times for people who take time-critical medicines?
- 02What changes were made to keep medicines within the correct storage temperature?
- 03How do you make sure every decision maker is included in best interest records?
- 04How are detailed end of life wishes discussed, recorded and kept up to date?
- 05Has the fire risk assessment due for review after the inspection now been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 June 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 Marchfield House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 January 2012.
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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.