Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Nightingale Court Care Home

Requires improvementpublished 9 March 2026, 7 months ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, July 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but risks, medicines records and quality systems needed improvement.

This was the home's first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 23 and 26 May 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.

The main concern was safety. Some health risks were not properly assessed, monitored or reduced. These included risks linked to swallowing unsafe items, dehydration, constipation, flammable creams and moving equipment. Medicines records also had gaps, although people were receiving their medicines as prescribed.

Inspectors found kind and respectful care, good support with food and healthcare, and a range of activities. However, the environment was not fully suitable for people living with dementia, some people in their rooms did not have enough documented meaningful activity, and quality checks had not found all the problems. The provider must send an action plan and progress will be monitored.

What inspectors praised
  • Safeguarding

    The home had systems to protect people from abuse. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns.

    “People were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had effective safeguarding systems in place.” from the report
  • Food and nutrition

    People's dietary needs and preferences were supported. Weights were monitored and action was taken when people lost weight.

    “People's dietary needs were met. They were provided with a nutritious and balanced diet that met their needs and preferences.” from the report
  • Choice and dignity

    People were supported to make day-to-day choices and to remain as independent as possible. Their privacy and dignity were respected.

    “People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was promoted.” from the report
  • Working with professionals

    The home worked with healthcare and social care professionals, including when people's health needs changed or they went to hospital.

    “People were referred to other health and social care professionals as needed.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unmanaged health and safety risks

    serious

    Some risks were not assessed or monitored well enough. This included risks related to unsafe items, dehydration, constipation, flammable creams and moving equipment.

    “Risks to people's safety had not always been safely managed.” from the report
  • Incomplete medicines records

    needs fixing

    Some medicines administration records had gaps, with no reason recorded for missed signatures. Some as-required medicines also lacked sufficiently detailed guidance.

    “There were gaps on medicines administration records (MARs) where staff had not signed, and no reason was recorded for omission.” from the report
  • Dementia-friendly environment

    needs fixing

    The home lacked enough signs, contrasting colours and landmarks to help people living with dementia find their way and recognise their rooms.

    “There was a lack of dementia friendly signage, contrasting colours, themes and landmarks to help people orientate themselves around the home.” from the report
  • Activities for people in their rooms

    needs fixing

    Staff said they spent time with people individually, but records did not show how much stimulation and occupation some people received.

    “Due to a lack of documentation, it could not be evidenced how much stimulation and occupation was available for these people.” from the report
  • Quality checks

    needs fixing

    The provider's audits did not identify all the concerns found by inspectors or drive enough improvement in risk management, records and the environment.

    “These had not always been fully effective in identifying all the concerns we found or driving the necessary improvement.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to assess and monitor risks such as dehydration, constipation, unsafe items, flammable creams and moving equipment?
  2. 02How are medicines administration records and as-required medicines protocols checked now?
  3. 03What dementia-friendly changes have been made to signs, colours, landmarks and bedroom doors?
  4. 04How are meaningful activities planned and recorded for people who spend most of their time in their rooms?
  5. 05How do the provider's audits now make sure problems are found and improvements are sustained?

This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home, covering all five rating areas and prompted in part by concerns about safe care and treatment. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Nightingale Court Care Home

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.

  1. July 2023Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Nightingale Court Care Home →

  2. February 2022

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 February 2022.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.”
Emily B., about Prisca S.
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Roderick N., about Jaison M.
See live-in carers near HampshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.