CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Marlborough House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements and safe visiting procedures.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found that the home had arrangements for safe visits, testing, isolation, protective equipment, cleaning, ventilation and social distancing. They were assured that people were being admitted safely and that infection outbreaks could be prevented or managed.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for care, effectiveness, kindness, responsiveness or leadership.
Safe visiting
The home used visitor care plans, pre-booked visits, testing and protective equipment. People could also visit nominated visitors inside and other visitors in a garden visiting pod.
“The provider had ensured people could have visitors safely in accordance with national policy.” from the report
Infection-control measures
Staff used protective equipment, worked on one floor where possible, and followed testing and isolation arrangements for new admissions.
“Staff including agency staff, only worked at the service.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with frequent cleaning of high-contact areas, ventilation and separate clean and dirty laundry arrangements.
“The service was clean and hygienic. Staff ensured high contact areas were cleaned frequently.” from the report
Management oversight
The manager sought specialist advice and regularly checked the strength of the home's infection-control policies and procedures.
“The registered manager and the provider regularly assessed the robustness of the home's infection control policies and processes” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are visitors still required to book in advance, complete testing and wear protective equipment?
- 02How are new residents tested, isolated and monitored when they move into the home?
- 03Do staff still receive infection-control training, and how is their use of protective equipment checked?
- 04How often are high-contact areas cleaned, and how are infection-control audits shared with families?
- 05What information can you provide about care quality areas that this targeted inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question only; the home was inspected but not rated and the other areas 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, January 2018
Marlborough House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some mandatory training still to complete.
The inspection was unannounced on 16 November 2017 and continued on 17 November. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, staff files, training records and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable care plans and good access to healthcare. People described staff as kind, respectful and responsive.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in June 2016. Recruitment records were more complete, and managers were using quality checks more effectively to act on shortfalls. A small number of staff still needed to complete some mandatory training, although sessions had been arranged.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and call bells were answered without long waits. Risk assessments gave staff guidance about falls, nutrition, hydration and pressure care.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with patience, dignity and encouragement. People could choose who helped them with personal care.
“People were cared for by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's routines, preferences and changing needs. People were able to make choices about their daily lives and end-of-life care.
“People received care that was responsive to their needs and personalised to their wishes and preferences.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
Staff worked with healthcare professionals and acted on health concerns. Food was adapted to people's needs, including fortified or pureed diets where required.
“People had their nutritional needs assessed and were supported to have a good diet.” from the report
Improved management
Since the previous inspection, recruitment checks and quality monitoring had improved. Managers were taking action when audits identified problems.
“At this inspection we found this had improved.” from the report
Some training incomplete
minorA small number of staff still needed to complete some mandatory training at the time of inspection. The provider had booked training sessions and told staff when to attend.
“The training matrix showed a small number of staff still needed to complete some mandatory training.” from the report
One concern about staffing levels
minorMost people said staffing was sufficient, but one person felt there could be more staff and preferred regular staff to agency workers. Inspectors still judged staffing levels sufficient for assessed needs.
“Staffing has improved and they use fewer agencies but you could always have more couldn't you?” from the report
- 01Has all mandatory training identified at the inspection now been completed, and how is this monitored?
- 02How many staff are normally on duty during the day and night, and when are agency staff used?
- 03How are people's care plans and risk assessments updated when their needs change?
- 04How are residents' views about food, activities and daily routines used to make changes?
- 05How are medicines, care records and other quality checks followed up when they identify a problem?
This was a full inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous Safe and Well-led ratings improved from Requires Improvement to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 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 Marlborough House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 December 2010.
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.