CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Plean Dene
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about cleaning, protective equipment, testing, visiting procedures and infection outbreak arrangements. The provider also had measures to reduce the risks linked to COVID-19 staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, safe visiting arrangements and suitable COVID-19 testing.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 23 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and the effect of COVID-19 staffing pressures.
The home was clean. Staff recorded extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces. Visitors were screened, tested before entry and given protective equipment. People and staff were tested regularly, with mental capacity rules followed where needed.
Inspectors were assured that protective equipment was used safely, infection outbreaks could be managed and the home had up-to-date policies. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Clean environment
The home was clean and staff kept records of routine and extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“The home was kept clean. Staff kept records of their cleaning schedules, which included additional cleaning high touch surfaces, such as light switches, grab rails and door handles.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home had procedures for visits, including screening, testing and guidance on using protective equipment.
“Staff undertook screening of all visitors and rapid response lateral flow tests (LFT) were undertaken for visitors before they entered the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough protective equipment, and staff had been trained to use and dispose of it safely.
“Staff had received training to use PPE and we saw they were following this throughout the inspection.” from the report
Testing arrangements
People and staff were tested regularly. Where people could not consent, the report says mental capacity legislation was followed.
“People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19. Staff completed an LFT test prior to each shift to ensure they were safe to support people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control and visiting arrangements are in place now?
- 02How do you currently manage staffing pressures, and could these affect people's care?
- 03How often are staff and people tested when there is an infection risk?
- 04How do you support someone who cannot give informed consent to a COVID-19 test?
- 05How do you manage a possible infection outbreak, and who would you contact for advice?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not rate the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 2022 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, August 2018
Plean Dene rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staff training and some legal records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 1 and 4 May 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with staff, the manager, family members and healthcare professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, staffing and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, clean premises and care that was kind and tailored to each person.
There were some shortfalls. Risk information was not always recorded clearly, some staff training was out of date, and best-interest decisions were not recorded for everyone who needed them. The quality checks had not identified all of these issues.
The Good rating means the home was meeting the standards overall at the time of this inspection, although the report identified improvements that the provider needed to make. The home remained Good, as it had been at the February 2016 inspection.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely. Staff had guidance for deciding when people needed medicines given as required, including people who could not communicate verbally.
“There were robust arrangements in place for the safe recording, storage and administration of medications.” from the report
Kind support
Staff knew people well and treated them with patience, dignity and respect. They used different ways to communicate and involve people.
“Staff were patient when speaking with people. We observed staff speaking with kindness and respect, sitting with people and chatting to them whilst supporting with activities.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave detailed information about each person's preferences, communication and support needs. Staff followed this information in practice.
“Care plans were detailed and explained exactly how each person liked to be supported.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to choose activities and to go out into the community. Inspectors saw people taking part in activities suited to their interests.
“People had access to a range of meaningful activities in the community suited to their individual interests and needs.” from the report
Staffing levels
There were enough staff to meet people's assessed needs and support activities and trips out. The home generally used familiar staff rather than external agency staff.
“There was enough staff to meet people's needs and to enable them to support people to engage in activities and access the community.” from the report
Mental capacity records
seriousBest-interest decisions were not recorded for all people who had been assessed as unable to make particular decisions. The report also found that consent was not always being sought in line with the law.
“Best interest decisions had only been completed for one person.” from the report
Out-of-date training
needs fixingMandatory training updates were overdue for many staff. At least 11 staff had not had health and safety training for over two years, and seven had not had infection control training for over three years.
“The provider had failed to ensure that staff had received training which was relevant to their role and required to keep people safe.” from the report
Inconsistent risk records
needs fixingPeople's risks had been assessed, but different recording methods meant that information was not always clear for staff.
“Although risks were identified, the information was not always clear.” from the report
Family involvement in reviews
minorCare plans and risks were reviewed, but reviews had not always been held regularly with family members. The manager said reviews had since been scheduled with families.
“However, reviews had not always been regularly held with family members.” from the report
- 01Have all mandatory training updates now been completed, especially health and safety and infection control?
- 02How do you record best-interest decisions for people who cannot make particular decisions themselves?
- 03How do you make sure consent is sought and recorded in line with the Mental Capacity Act?
- 04How are risks recorded now so that guidance is consistent and clear for every person?
- 05How often will families be invited to take part in care-plan reviews?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the ratings remained Good from the February 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 August 2018 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 Plean Dene
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 June 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
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.