CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Nutley Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Nutley Hall was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the pandemic.
The inspection took place on 27 October 2020. It was announced and focused only on infection prevention and control as part of a national coronavirus review.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks safely. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home supported visits through a booking system and used outdoor areas and a community hall. Staff had training tailored to each home, and clear face masks were available for people who needed to see facial expressions or lip movements.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not provide an overall judgement on the quality of care or ratings for the other questions.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to prevent and manage infection, including access to testing and effective use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visits and activities
The home used staggered visits and offered outdoor or community hall visits. People could also access local social and leisure activities while keeping distance.
“There was a booking system to ensure all visits were staggered.” from the report
Communication support
Clear masks helped staff support people who needed to see facial expressions or lip movements.
“Clear plastic face masks were provided for staff to wear, these were helpful when supporting people with a need to see facial expressions or lip movements.” from the report
Tailored staff training
Training on protective equipment and infection control was adapted for each home within the service.
“Training for use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) was tailored to each individual home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently booked and supported, and can visits take place outdoors or in the community hall?
- 02How do you currently support people who need to see staff facial expressions or lip movements?
- 03What infection prevention and control training do staff receive now, and is it tailored to each home?
- 04How do you arrange testing for people living here and staff?
- 05How would you manage an infection outbreak, and when was the infection control policy last updated?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 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, March 2020
Nutley Hall rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care with strong choice, activities and management.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 27 January 2020. An inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, a relative, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems and suitable risk assessments. People were supported to make choices, build independence and take part in activities such as baking, weaving, gardening and trips into the community.
Care was described as caring and respectful. Staff knew people's needs, preferences and communication styles well. Care plans were reviewed with people and relatives, and complaints could be made using an accessible procedure.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. The overall rating was the same as at the previous inspection, published on 4 September 2017.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday decisions and develop their skills. Staff used the least restrictive approach possible.
“People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely and take part in activities. Recruitment checks were also completed.
“There were enough staff to provide the support people wanted in a safe way.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People could choose from workshops, community trips, gardening, music and other activities. Activities were planned around people's interests.
“People were supported to do activities of their choice, in one of the workshops or in the community.” from the report
Personal knowledge of people
Staff understood people's needs, preferences and ways of communicating. Care plans gave clear guidance about individual support.
“Staff knew people very well and had a good understanding of their needs.” from the report
Involvement in decisions
People and relatives were involved in care reviews, residents' forums and community meetings. People could suggest and choose activities and outings.
“People, relatives, staff and professionals were involved in reviewing the care and support provided.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, especially if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 02How would my relative be involved in choosing activities and making decisions about their daily routine?
- 03What training and experience would the staff supporting my relative have for their specific health and support needs?
- 04How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or behaviour changes?
- 05How would you keep me informed if there were an accident, safeguarding concern or change in my relative's health?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with care, accommodation, records, medicines, staffing and management systems reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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.
Every inspection of Nutley Hall
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
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.