CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pinehurst Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse, medicines were safely managed and staffing levels were sufficient. Inspectors said some individual risk assessments needed further work to make them person-centred.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training, support and supervision. People had suitable food and drinks, access to healthcare and support with decisions where they lacked capacity.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this focused inspection. Inspectors did observe staff providing care in a kind, patient and compassionate way.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Activities were adapted to people's interests and needs, including for people who stayed in their rooms. Staff supported communication and helped people keep in touch with family during lockdown.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management systems had improved. The provider and manager were completing audits, sharing notifiable incidents and working with local professionals to improve the service.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, but some risk assessments and building work still needed attention.
Inspectors visited on three days in April 2021. The first visit was unannounced, and the next two were planned. They spoke with people, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People appeared relaxed and comfortable. Staff were kind and patient. Inspectors found safe medicines management, enough staff, suitable training, good food choices, activities linked to people's interests, and improved checks on care and safety.
Some work was still needed. Individual risk assessments were not always fully person-centred. Repairs to the rear decking and plans for a more accessible bathroom had not yet been completed.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led. The inspection was focused on these areas because the home had previously required improvement and had breached regulations. Inspectors found the provider had made enough improvements and was no longer in breach.
Kind staff
Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and compassionately. People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff.
“We observed staff assisting people in a kind, patient and compassionate way.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Medicines were stored, checked and given in line with prescriptions.
“People's medicines were being safely stored, checked and administered in line with individuals' prescriptions.” from the report
Activities and communication
The home provided group and individual activities based on people's interests. Staff understood how people communicated, including when they could not express their needs verbally.
“The activities person had spent time speaking with people and getting to understand what their interests were” from the report
Improved management
Quality checks and oversight had improved since the previous inspection. The provider was more involved and the home worked with local professionals.
“The provider had been more proactive in the whole quality assurance process.” from the report
Risk assessments needed more detail
needs fixingInspectors found that some risk assessments were not yet personal enough. They recommended following best practice, although the home had already made improvements.
“Individual risk assessments had been developed for people's care plans, but these needed some further work to ensure they were person centred.” from the report
Some building work unfinished
minorThe rear decking had not been repaired, and a more accessible ground-floor bathroom was still planned. The provider said this work was being prioritised.
“The decking at the back of the house had not been repaired, due to COVID-19 and lockdown restrictions.” from the report
- 01Have the rear decking repairs now been completed, and has the more accessible ground-floor bathroom been installed?
- 02How do you make sure each person's risk assessments reflect their individual needs, wishes and risks?
- 03What checks are now used to make sure medicines audits and staff competency records are completed and recorded properly?
- 04How are activities planned for a new resident's interests, communication needs and ability to take part?
- 05What is the home's current rating or evidence for the Caring area, which was not covered by this focused inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led; the Caring area was not covered, and ratings for areas not inspected were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 May 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, June 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; Pinehurst Care Home had kind care and good food, but inspectors found safety, consent and management weaknesses.
This was a planned, comprehensive inspection over two visits on 20 March and 3 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, risk records, medicines, staff records and management checks.
The home was caring, with kind staff who knew people well. People enjoyed the food, received medicines safely by the second visit and had access to health professionals. Staffing levels were considered adequate.
However, some parts of the building were unsafe or in poor repair. Risk records were incomplete, equipment checks were not always done, and mental capacity and liberty safeguards had not been properly dealt with. Care plans, activities, staff supervision and management checks also needed improvement.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. All five question ratings had fallen from Good at the previous inspection in September 2016, except Caring, which remained Good.
Kind relationships
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors found that staff knew people's needs and preferences and supported their dignity and independence.
“Staff were friendly, kind and caring to people and spent time with them.” from the report
Food and drink
People had meal choices and the cook knew their likes and dislikes. Food was adapted for individual needs, including pureed diets and alternatives when requested.
“People received nutritious and appetising meals which met their needs and preferences.” from the report
Staff recruitment
New staff had the required pre-employment checks before starting work. Inspectors also found that staffing levels were enough to meet people's needs.
“New staff were safely recruited and had the necessary pre-employment checks in place before they started work.” from the report
Medicines improved
Medicines management was reviewed between the two inspection visits. On the second visit, storage, administration and records were found to be safe and well managed.
“On our second visit, management of people's medicines had been reviewed and we found them to be safe and well managed.” from the report
Unsafe areas
seriousSome parts of the building needed repair and created risks. Uneven carpets were a trip hazard and the rotten decking could not be used safely.
“There were areas of the home that needed refurbishment and posed a risk to people.” from the report
Consent and liberty safeguards
seriousMental capacity assessments had not been completed and not all required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had been made. This meant people's legal rights and freedom were not properly protected.
“MCA assessments had not been undertaken.Not all MCA assessments and DoLS applications had been completed for those people that required them” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems and records had lapsed. They did not identify the problems found by inspectors or provide strong enough oversight of care quality.
“The lack of robust quality assurance meant people were at risk of receiving poor quality care” from the report
Care plans not current
needs fixingSome care plans had not been reviewed after people's needs changed. Staff knew what to do in practice, but the records did not always explain this clearly for safe and consistent care.
“However, some of the care plans had not been reviewed recently and people's needs had changed.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingSome people appeared bored, and activities did not always reflect individual hobbies and interests. The provider later said it had employed a second activities worker.
“There was a lack of hobbies and interests related to the individual needs of people, for example those living with dementia.” from the report
- 01Have all unsafe areas, including the carpets and decking, now been repaired and checked?
- 02Have mental capacity assessments and all required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications been completed?
- 03How are you now checking pressure-relieving mattresses, bed rails, water temperatures and other equipment?
- 04How often are care plans reviewed when people's needs or behaviour change?
- 05What individual activities are now available for people living with dementia and for people with different hobbies?
This was a comprehensive inspection of the regulated care home service; the separate day care activity was not regulated by CQC and was not included. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 June 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 Pinehurst Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.