CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Nightingales Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Nightingales Residential Care Home was inspected but not rated; infection controls were mostly reassuring, but cleaning schedules and risk assessments needed improvement.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 June 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about visiting arrangements, social distancing, PPE, testing, safe admissions and managing infection outbreaks. The home was clean and staff followed correct infection control practices.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about cleaning arrangements and the infection control policy. Some cleaning schedules were incomplete, and COVID-19 risk assessments were limited and not regularly updated. The home was inspected but not rated.
Clean environment
The home was clean and had regular domestic staff carrying out cleaning work.
“The home was clean and there was a team of regular domestic staff who completed a cleaning programme.” from the report
PPE and staff training
There was enough PPE, and staff had received training on COVID-19 and using PPE safely.
“An adequate supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) was available and staff had received specific COVID-19 training” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had a visiting procedure, a testing area and arrangements to support visits in line with government guidance.
“The home facilitated visiting in line with the government guidelines.” from the report
Incomplete cleaning schedule
needs fixingThe schedule did not clearly show all the cleaning needed or how often some areas should be cleaned. The registered manager said new schedules would be developed.
“However, there was not a full cleaning schedule to identify the cleaning needed and the regularity of cleaning in some areas was not clear.” from the report
Risk assessments not regularly updated
needs fixingThe COVID-19 risk assessments were limited and did not include a system for checking people's and staff's vulnerability.
“However, the COVID-19 risk assessments used to inform this were limited and lacked regular updating.” from the report
- 01Have you completed the new cleaning schedules promised after the inspection?
- 02How often are high-touch areas cleaned and how is this recorded?
- 03How are COVID-19 risk assessments updated now?
- 04How do you assess the infection risks and vulnerability of each person and staff member?
- 05What are the current arrangements for visiting, testing and using PPE?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only, so it did not assess the other four CQC questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 July 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, May 2019
Nightingales Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and personalised, but safe practice and management checks were not yet consistent.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 18 March 2019. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff files, training, accidents, complaints and quality checks. They spoke with 10 people, seven relatives and eight staff, and considered further evidence sent after the visit.
The home had made substantial progress since the previous inspection. People said they felt safe and received the care they needed. Staff respected people's choices, supported their independence and provided activities, food and healthcare that met people's needs.
There were still concerns about staff consistently following safe moving and handling guidance. Some medicines records for short respite stays were not signed, dated or independently checked. Management checks did not yet cover every area, and some care plan information was out of date.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive care were rated Good. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The report says regulations breached at the previous inspection had been met at this visit, but improvements still needed to become everyday practice.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect.
“We saw staff treated people with respect. They were kind and caring when they provided assistance” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences and involved them in decisions about care, meals and where they spent their time.
“People and their relatives were involved in writing and reviewing their care plans, planning the care they wanted with staff” from the report
Improved activities
People had more opportunities to take part in activities they enjoyed, including quizzes, arts and crafts, films and singing.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
People were offered food suited to their needs and preferences. Staff involved health professionals, including speech and language specialists and district nurses, when needed.
“A healthy and nutritious diet was provided, with choices for each meal based on people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Moving and handling practice
seriousInspectors saw staff help people stand and walk by placing a hand under the person's arm. This did not follow the home's current guidance and created a risk of harm, although action was taken afterwards.
“However, we observed on two occasions staff assisting people to stand up and walk by placing their hand under each person's arm.” from the report
Incomplete medicines records
seriousFor some short respite stays, medicines records had not been signed or dated and there was no evidence they had been checked against another source. The manager said action would be taken.
“the staff member who recorded these medicines had not signed and dated the records” from the report
Management checks not complete
needs fixingThe quality monitoring system had improved, but some areas had not yet been audited. Inspectors also found that some care plan information was out of date.
“However, some areas had not been audited” from the report
- 01What training and competency checks have all staff completed since the inspection on safe moving and handling?
- 02How do you check medicines records for people staying for short respite periods?
- 03Have all care plans now been reviewed and brought up to date?
- 04Which quality audits are now completed regularly, and how do you track actions that need to be fixed?
- 05Has the voluntary limit on new admissions been lifted, and what evidence supported that decision?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection of all five key questions, using records, observations and discussions with people, relatives and staff; further evidence was considered after the visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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 Nightingales Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Nightingales Residential Care Home →
- May 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Nightingales Residential Care Home →
- August 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 March 2017.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East 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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.