CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pax Hill Residential Home EMF Unit
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and controlling infection. This included safe admissions, effective PPE use, testing, hygiene, social distancing and outbreak planning.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling coronavirus infections.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks. They were also assured that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
The report describes a visiting pod, regular family contact using technology, and a separate area for people who needed to self-isolate. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good or Requires Improvement judgement.
Safer visiting
The home had created a visiting pod separated by a Perspex screen, with separate access for visitors and residents.
“The bedroom had been divided by a floor to ceiling Perspex screen and an intercom fitted.” from the report
Family contact
Staff supported regular contact with families and used technology to help people celebrate birthdays with relatives who lived across the country.
“Staff facilitated regular contact with people's families. They had used technology to enable two people to celebrate their birthdays with their family members from all over the country.” from the report
Support during isolation
A bedroom and nearby lounge were available for people who needed to self-isolate after admission. The home had also identified a designated walking area for people with dementia who could not stay in their bedroom during an outbreak.
“This enabled them to access a larger, calm space, whilst self-isolating.” from the report
Staff infection measures
Staff uniforms were washed at the home, and staff had access to showers and meals provided by the provider.
“Staff's uniforms were washed on-site to prevent the spread of infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visiting arrangements managed now, and is the visiting pod still available?
- 02What happens if a new resident needs to self-isolate after admission?
- 03How do you support a person living with dementia who cannot understand the need to stay in their bedroom during an outbreak?
- 04How are residents and staff tested if there is a suspected infection outbreak?
- 05How do you make sure PPE, cleaning and social distancing arrangements remain effective?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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, February 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in the home's leadership, emergency evacuation planning and restraint training.
This was a comprehensive inspection carried out over 8 and 9 January 2019. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care records, staff files, medicines, safety records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, kind and respectful support, personalised care plans, good activities and appropriate support for people's health needs.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for being well-led. The manager's checks had not identified missing full emergency evacuation plans, a lack of restraint training or the failure to notify CQC about a suspected Norovirus outbreak. Immediate steps were taken to address these issues.
The overall rating stayed Good. Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good, while Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, dignity and respect. Staff listened to people and supported their choices.
“Each interaction from staff was undertaken in a caring, focussed manner which promoted the person's well-being.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to support people in a calm and unhurried way. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs in a relaxed and unhurried manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, interests and communication methods. Families were involved in reviews where possible.
“Care plans were personalised to each individual and contained information to assist staff to provide care in a manner that respected their wishes.” from the report
Activities and dementia-friendly environment
People had access to indoor and outdoor spaces, regular activities and outings. The renovated building included features designed for people with dementia.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities.” from the report
Emergency evacuation plans
seriousPeople did not have full written plans explaining the support and equipment each person would need in an emergency. Staff had not taken part in evacuation drills before the inspection, although new plans and drills were started afterwards.
“Staff did not have easily found guidance from individual fire risk assessments, known as Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP's)” from the report
Restraint training
seriousStaff held one person's hands during personal care, but had not been trained in restraint or least restrictive practice. The manager arranged training and provided an updated risk assessment after the inspection.
“Staff needed training around what constituted restraint.” from the report
Quality checks and reporting
needs fixingThe home's checks had not identified the evacuation and restraint shortfalls. The manager also did not notify CQC about a suspected Norovirus outbreak at the time, although a retrospective notification was later submitted.
“According to the records we inspected, the service had not notified the Care Quality Commission (CQC) of one significant event which had occurred in line with their legal responsibilities.” from the report
- 01Have full Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans now been completed for every person, including plans for daytime and night-time staffing?
- 02Have all staff completed training on restraint and least restrictive support?
- 03When was the last fire drill, and have all staff groups taken part?
- 04How does the home now check that important safety shortfalls are identified promptly?
- 05What process is used to make sure incidents that must be reported to CQC are notified on time?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and included observations, discussions with people and relatives, records, staff files, medicines, safety paperwork and quality audits. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 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.
Every inspection of Pax Hill Residential Home EMF Unit
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Pax Hill Residential Home EMF Unit →
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Pax Hill Residential Home EMF Unit →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 March 2013.
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
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.”
“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.