CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Northbrooke House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 11 February 2020 without announcing the inspection. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management systems.
The home provided personal and nursing care for 63 people, including people living with dementia. Inspectors found that medicines, risks, staffing, infection control and safeguarding were managed safely. Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with healthcare, food and communication.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans recorded people's individual needs, choices and interests. Inspectors also found meaningful activities and effective management systems. All five areas were rated Good, meaning the inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of the inspection.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. Records were complete, and staff had training and competency checks.
“Medicines administration records (MAR) were completed correctly and indicated that people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were attentive, patient and compassionate. People were treated as individuals, with their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
“We observed staff were attentive and patient when supporting people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's history, wishes, communication needs and relationships. Staff used this information to provide individualised care.
“People received person centred care that recognised their individual needs and wishes, and it was clear that staff were dedicated to providing individualised care and support.” from the report
Activities and wellbeing
Dedicated staff provided activities based on people's interests and abilities. These included group activities, one-to-one support and activities of daily living.
“The service employed staff specifically to provide activities and consider people's wellbeing.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its records, audits and quality monitoring since the previous inspection. Managers understood their responsibilities and acted on areas for improvement.
“Effective quality assurance systems and processes were in place using an electronic records system that the provider had oversight of.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you now check that risk assessments stay accurate when a person's needs or behaviour changes?
- 02How are medicines audits and staff competency checks carried out now?
- 03How do you make sure activities continue to reflect each person's interests, abilities and wellbeing?
- 04How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and decisions about changing needs?
- 05What checks show that the improvements made after the previous inspection have been maintained?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 2020 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, February 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but problems with medicines, risk management, care records and oversight.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 7 and 12 November 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, incident records, staffing information and quality checks, and observed care.
The home was clean and well maintained. Staff were caring, respectful and supportive. People had enough to eat and drink, could take part in activities, and relatives were welcomed. Staffing levels and recruitment checks were suitable.
However, inspectors found unsafe medicines practices, incomplete records, poor monitoring of some risks and delays in wound care. Some restrictive practices were not used or recorded correctly. The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, and Good for Caring.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors observed calm, compassionate interactions and found that privacy and dignity were maintained.
“People were treated in a kind, considerate and compassionate way by staff. People's privacy and dignity was maintained.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough care and support staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, including references and DBS checks, had been completed.
“There were sufficient numbers of care and ancillary staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Food and drink
People's nutritional and hydration needs were assessed and met. Staff provided special diets, monitored people at risk and gave help with eating when needed.
“People's nutrition and hydration needs were met and people were satisfied with the quality of the meals.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could join activities suited to their interests and abilities. The home also supported community events and welcomed local visitors and volunteers.
“Staff supported people to access a range of activities suited to their individual interests. Positive links with the local community had been developed.” from the report
Restrictive practices
seriousAn inappropriate restraint technique was used twice to move one person. Records of physical intervention were incomplete and did not explain what had been tried first or the outcome.
“The person was therefore placed at high risk of harm when an inappropriate restraint procedure was used a second time.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousOne person did not receive prescribed medicines correctly, errors were not reported as required and medicine records were incomplete. Creams were not always recorded or applied correctly, and storage temperature records did not show that medicines were always kept safely.
“Not all aspects of medicines management were safe. This included the administration of some medicines and ensuring safe storage temperatures.” from the report
Risk management
seriousTwo pressure-relieving mattresses were set incorrectly. Inspectors also found gaps in supervision, repositioning records and investigations into unexplained bruising and skin injuries.
“Two were set incorrectly placing these people at risk of pressure injury.” from the report
Wound and catheter care
seriousSome wounds were not reassessed or redressed promptly. One wound was not recorded as reviewed or redressed for nine days, and one catheter change was two weeks late.
“However, there were no further records to show the wound had been reviewed by nurses and redressed for nine days.” from the report
Care plans and records
needs fixingCare plans varied in quality. Some contained contradictory, vague or outdated information, and records did not always show that planned care had been provided.
“We found the quality of care plans varied with many being very individual and person focused whilst others contained contradicting information.” from the report
Quality checks
seriousManagers had monitoring systems, but these had not found the problems identified by inspectors. This led to a breach concerning governance and accurate records.
“The failure to adequately monitor the quality of the service and records held in respect of people and the care they required and received has meant that people have not always received care in a timely way to meet their health and care needs.” from the report
- 01How are medicines errors, missing MAR entries and storage temperatures checked and followed up now?
- 02How do you make sure pressure-relieving mattresses are set correctly and that repositioning and night checks are recorded?
- 03How are restrictive interventions approved, recorded and reviewed, and what alternatives are tried first?
- 04How do nurses track wound reviews, dressings and catheter changes so that none are overdue?
- 05How often are care plans audited, and how do you resolve contradictory or outdated information?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, covering both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Northbrooke House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 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.