CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Mewsbrook House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, the home was clean and maintained, medicines were administered safely, and staffing levels met people's needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and supervision. People received support with eating, drinking and healthcare, and the home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff offered choices and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and beliefs. Activities, visits and communication support were available, and people's end-of-life wishes were recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had quality checks covering areas such as medicines, infection control, care planning and health and safety. Staff described good teamwork and felt supported.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Mewsbrook House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with clear improvements since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 February 2023. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, a relative and staff, observed care, and reviewed records including 12 care plans.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, personalised care plans, activities, good links with health professionals and respectful care.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with breaches of regulation. Inspectors found that the required improvements to the building and quality checks had been made. The home was no longer in breach of regulation.
Improved environment
The building had been refurbished and was clean, pleasant and well maintained. It had features to help people move around and find their way.
“Extensive work had been carried out at the service and the environment was clean, pleasant and well maintained.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found accurate medicines records, suitable storage and regular checks of medicines processes.
“Regular auditing of medicine procedures had taken place, including checks on accurately recording administered medicines” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff offered choices, respected privacy and encouraged independence.
“People were supported to make their own decisions. People told us they were free to do what they wanted throughout the day.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, interests, beliefs and communication needs. The home offered group and one-to-one activities.
“Individual person-centred care plans had been developed, enabling staff to support people in a personalised way that was specific to their needs and preferences” from the report
Learning and oversight
The home had acted on the previous inspection findings. Managers used audits and staff feedback to monitor and improve the service.
“The service had a strong emphasis on teamwork and communication.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's individual risks, such as falls, choking or poor nutrition?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff when someone is ill or away?
- 03How will you support my relative's preferred activities, communication needs, religious beliefs and family visits?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given correctly and that records remain accurate?
- 05How would you record and follow my relative's wishes about end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection that assessed all five key questions and included infection prevention and control checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 2023 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 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but the home was not well maintained and its improvement systems were not strong enough.
This was a planned, unannounced comprehensive inspection. Inspectors spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staff files, accident records, complaints and quality checks.
People generally said they were happy and felt safe. Inspectors found kind staff, enough staff, personalised care, good support with food and healthcare, and respect for people's choices, privacy and dignity.
However, some parts of the home were unclean and had unpleasant odours. Areas needed repairs and redecoration. The provider's audits identified many issues but did not set out clear actions or timescales to fix them.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home breached Regulation 15 because the premises were not properly maintained.
Kind, respectful care
Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions. Staff knew people well, did not rush care, and respected privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“People were cared for by kind staff who ensured that people received the care they needed and wanted.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staff available to provide care and assistance. People did not have long waits when they needed help.
“There were enough staff to provide a consistent service for people.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's backgrounds, preferences and routines without needing to check the care plans. Care was adapted to individual needs.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their individual needs.” from the report
Good decision-making support
Staff sought people's agreement before providing support. Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were recorded where needed.
“We saw staff seeking people's agreement before supporting them and then waiting for a response before acting.” from the report
Poor maintenance and cleanliness
seriousSome areas needed repair and redecoration, and unpleasant odours were present. This was a breach of Regulation 15 and created a clear concern about the environment.
“Throughout our visit we saw that various areas of the service needed repair and redecoration.” from the report
Unpleasant odours
needs fixingThe home was not always clean and unpleasant odours were found in some areas throughout the inspection.
“People were protected from the risks of infection, however the home was not always clean and well maintained, for example unpleasant odours were present in certain areas of the home throughout the inspection.” from the report
Audits did not drive repairs
needs fixingQuality checks identified many maintenance problems but did not say who would fix them or when. Inspectors also found further problems that the audits had missed.
“A maintenance and environment audit identified need for repairs and redecoration but did not have any actions or timescales to resolve the issues identified.” from the report
Staff concerns not acted on
needs fixingStaff said management was slow to act on faults and that the home remained in poor condition. They felt their comments about the environment had not resulted in change.
“They seem to listen, but don't do anything about it” from the report
- 01Which repairs and redecoration identified in the report have now been completed, and which remain outstanding?
- 02How do you now record actions, named responsibilities and deadlines for maintenance problems?
- 03How are unpleasant odours and cleaning standards checked and followed up?
- 04How do staff report faults or environmental concerns, and how quickly are these acted on?
- 05What evidence can you show that the improvements required after this inspection have been completed?
This was a planned, unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five key questions; the report also says Safe and Well-led had been rated Requires Improvement at the focused inspection in August 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 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 Mewsbrook House
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.