CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Pinehurst Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities. Medicines, recruitment checks, risk assessments and staffing levels were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people's health needs were monitored with help from healthcare professionals. Care was provided in line with people's choices and legal requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff being kind, caring, friendly and attentive. People were involved in their care, treated with dignity and supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's preferences and mental health needs. People were supported with activities, community visits, relationships, communication and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had improved its care records and introduced regular quality and safety audits. People, relatives and staff said it was well managed, and professionals reported good working relationships.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Pinehurst Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 December 2019. One inspector spoke with nine people, two relatives and five staff. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors saw staff being kind, attentive and respectful.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in November 2018. Care plans and risk assessments had been rewritten, recruitment checks had improved, and a quality monitoring system had been introduced.
There was one minor environmental issue. Some paint had flaked from the laundry room walls because of condensation, making them harder to keep clean. Refurbishment plans included the laundry room and bathrooms.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives praised the staff. Inspectors observed care that was kind, attentive and respectful.
“Our observations showed staff were kind, caring, friendly and attentive.” from the report
Improved care records
Care plans and risk assessments had been rewritten so staff had clearer information about people's needs, risks and how to reduce distress.
“Care records had been rewritten and provided clear and accurate information about people's care needs and how to keep people safe.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were given by trained and competent staff. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and support activities.
“Sufficient numbers of care staff were available to meet people's needs and to spend time with people in conversation and social activities.” from the report
Choice and community life
People were supported to follow their interests, take part in social activities and come and go freely to the local town.
“People were supported to have a presence in the community, and we saw people coming and going freely to the local town.” from the report
Better quality monitoring
The management team had introduced regular checks on medicines, health and safety, and the quality of care.
“A quality assurance system had been introduced which allowed the registered manager and assistant manager to review the quality and safety of the care provided.” from the report
Laundry room paint
minorSome paint had flaked from the laundry room walls because of condensation. This made the walls harder to keep clean, although refurbishment was planned.
“The laundry room walls needed repainting as some paint had flaked away due to condensation.” from the report
- 01Has the laundry room been repainted, and how do you now manage condensation and cleanliness there?
- 02How would you support my relative if their mobility reduced, given that the home has three floors and no lift?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed if a person's mental or physical health changes?
- 04How do residents choose activities, meals and support, and how can they raise concerns?
- 05What improvements have you made since the previous inspection, and how do your current audits show that they are being maintained?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, including care, medicines, staffing, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 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, January 2019
Pinehurst Residential Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but unsafe recruitment, incomplete care records and weak management checks.
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service. Inspectors spoke with 10 people, one relative, five staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, medicines, staff files, training, complaints and how the home checked quality and safety.
People generally said they felt safe and had good relationships with staff. Inspectors saw kindness, respect and a relaxed atmosphere. Staff understood people's needs, medicines were managed safely, and people received support with health appointments, activities and daily choices.
However, some staff had started work without all the required checks or references. Care records did not clearly explain some people's risks, needs or the action staff should take. The home did not have effective quality checks and had failed to notify CQC about significant events.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2016 to Requires Improvement. The five ratings were Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive, and Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led.
Kind and respectful care
People described good relationships with staff, and inspectors observed friendly and respectful interactions.
“Our observations showed people were treated with kindness and respect. There was a relaxed atmosphere between people and staff, with friendly conversation.” from the report
Safe medicines
Only trained and assessed staff administered medicines. Storage, disposal and guidance for as-needed medicines were also in place.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and preferences. People could choose activities and were supported to communicate in ways that suited them.
“People received care and support that was flexible and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Health support
People received support from health professionals and were helped to attend medical, dental, optician and podiatry appointments.
“People's physical and mental health care needs were being met.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome staff had started work without all pre-employment checks or references from previous employers. This was a breach of the regulations.
“Not all staff had undergone pre-employment checks or had references obtained prior to them starting to work at the home.” from the report
Incomplete risk and care records
seriousRecords did not always describe people's abilities, needs, risks or the action staff should take. This could make it harder for new staff to provide safe and consistent care.
“Care records did not reflect the nature of the person's self-harm, the control measures in place to mitigate the risks or who to contact in the event of an incident of self-harm.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAt the inspection, the home had no effective system for checking and improving the quality and safety of care. This was a breach of the regulations.
“At the time of the inspection, there were no quality assurance system in place to assess, monitor and improve the service provided.” from the report
Missed CQC notifications
seriousThe home had not told CQC about significant events affecting people's health, safety and welfare. This was a breach of the regulations.
“The home had failed to notify CQC of significant events which effected people's health, safety and welfare of people.” from the report
Environmental risk checks
needs fixingSome safety checks were not carried out routinely, including hot water temperature checks and complete assessment of bath use.
“Some aspects of monitoring the safety of environment were not being routinely checked.” from the report
- 01Have all current staff now had the required pre-employment checks and references, and how do you check this for new staff?
- 02Have care plans and risk assessments been updated to explain each person's needs, risks and the actions staff must take?
- 03What quality audits are now completed, how often are they reviewed, and what happens when they find a problem?
- 04How do you make sure significant events are reported to CQC and other relevant organisations?
- 05What checks are now in place for environmental risks such as bath water temperatures?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the overall service, covering all five key questions, the premises, care provided, medicines, records, staff files and quality systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 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 Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
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.