CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Nettlestead Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable risk assessments and appropriate systems for safeguarding, accidents and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff had relevant training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff respected their privacy, dignity, independence and choices. Inspectors observed caring and supportive interactions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. Activities, communication support, family involvement and complaint arrangements were available.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure and quality checks covering care records, medicines, incidents, health and safety and the premises. People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about how it was run.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Nettlestead Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 29 June 2023. They spoke with seven people, three care staff and managers. They observed care, checked seven care records, seven staff recruitment files and other management 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 risk assessments and appropriate infection control. People said they felt safe and well cared for.
People's care was tailored to their needs and choices. Staff supported food and drink, healthcare appointments, activities, relationships, privacy, dignity and independence. The home had systems for complaints, feedback, accidents and quality checks.
The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published in May 2019. The inspection was prompted by a review of information held about the service, and the regulator said it would continue to monitor information before the next inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Risks were assessed and reviewed.
“People told us they felt safe.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were stored and given safely, with accurate records. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and appropriate recruitment checks.
“Medicines were stored, administered, managed safely and accurate records were maintained.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences, personal histories and the level of support they required. They were reviewed regularly.
“Care plans were person centred.” from the report
Respect and choice
People were involved in decisions about their daily care and were supported to maintain privacy, dignity and independence.
“People told us staff were caring, considerate and respected their privacy, dignity, and independence.” from the report
Strong management
Inspectors found effective quality checks, regular meetings and good support from managers. The home worked with health and social care professionals.
“The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's care needs before they move in and after any change?
- 02How many staff are usually on duty, and how do you make sure there are enough staff when people need appointments or extra support?
- 03How will my relative and our family be involved in care plan reviews and decisions about their care?
- 04What activities and support are available to match my relative's interests, communication needs and cultural or religious preferences?
- 05How would you respond if my relative's needs changed, including if they needed end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the home's infection prevention and control arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 August 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, May 2019
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 and 16 April 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience visited, spoke with eight people and five staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, up-to-date risk assessments and clean premises. Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with food, drink, healthcare and activities. People and relatives gave positive feedback about safety, dignity and the way staff treated them.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found that legal requirements were met and that people’s outcomes were consistently good. The previous inspection was also rated Good.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found that staffing levels were consistently maintained and that staff were recruited with comprehensive background checks.
“There were enough staff on duty to support people safely and in a timely manner.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people’s likes, dislikes, life stories, interests and relationships. They were reviewed regularly and reflected current needs.
“Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis and reflective of people's current needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People said staff treated them with dignity and respected their privacy, choices and independence.
“People told us staff treated them with dignity, and that their privacy was respected.” from the report
Activities and involvement
An activities coordinator arranged daily activities, and people and relatives were involved in decisions and service improvements.
“The registered manager encouraged and empowered people and their relatives to be involved in service improvements through periodic meetings.” from the report
Strong oversight
The provider used checks and audits across important areas of care and made improvements when these identified a need.
“As a result of these checks and audits the provider made improvements” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing levels reviewed now, and how do they match each person’s current needs?
- 02How are medicines audits completed, and how are any errors or missed doses followed up?
- 03How are care plans reviewed when someone’s needs or risks change?
- 04What activities are available now, and how are people’s individual interests used to plan them?
- 05How would you provide end-of-life care if a resident needed it?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC areas, including the care provided and the premises; end-of-life care was not observed because nobody needed it at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 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 Nettlestead Care Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- December 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Goodup from Requires improvementEffective: Good
- April 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bromley
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 £1,260 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.