Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Pogles Wood

Goodpublished 3 February 2025, 20 months ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, September 2021

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety systems and management checks were not yet fully established.

This was the first planned inspection since the home registered. One inspector visited on 12 and 13 August 2021, met the person living there, observed care, spoke with staff and a health professional, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The person received personalised care from staff who knew them well. Inspectors found good care in the effective, caring and responsive areas. Staff supported the person’s communication, choices, healthcare, dignity and independence.

The safe and well-led ratings were Requires Improvement. Medicines were safely given, but the medicine cupboard did not meet current requirements. Some recruitment checks and management systems were incomplete or still being introduced. The provider made some immediate changes during and after the inspection.

The overall rating means the home was not consistently meeting the standard expected, although inspectors found many positive aspects of the person’s care. This was a newly registered service, so there was no previous inspection rating to compare.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors observed genuine warmth and compassion. Staff understood the person’s wishes, privacy and communication.

    “The person received a personalised service from friendly, knowledgeable staff who treated them with patience, kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
  • Consistent staffing

    The home had a stable, experienced staff team. It did not use agency staff, and absences were covered by familiar staff or the same bank staff.

    “This meant the person always received care and support from staff they knew and trusted.” from the report
  • Personalised environment

    The building had been adapted for the person’s mobility and health needs. It included accessible areas, a safe space and sensory equipment.

    “The person had the use of a separate room that included a range of sensory equipment with lights and bubbles that the person really enjoyed.” from the report
  • Good communication and choice

    Staff used touch, singing, observation, body language and facial expressions to communicate. They supported the person to make everyday choices.

    “We observed staff communicated with the person in ways they understood.” from the report
  • Support from other professionals

    The home worked with health and social care professionals to assess, plan and review the person’s care and treatment.

    “The service worked collaboratively with external health and social care professionals and specialists.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicine storage

    needs fixing

    Medicines were administered safely, but the locked cupboard did not meet current storage requirements. A compliant replacement cabinet was ordered immediately during the inspection.

    “Medicines were stored in a lockable cupboard, but this did not meet current regulations.” from the report
  • Recruitment records

    needs fixing

    Staff suitability checks had been completed, but health declarations were missing and one employment history was incomplete. These issues were addressed during or immediately after the inspection.

    “Staff had not completed health declarations to state they were fit to carry out their role.” from the report
  • Management checks not fully established

    needs fixing

    Several quality systems were still being introduced. These included medicine competency checks, regular supervision, incident reviews and questionnaires for feedback.

    “These systems needed time to become established in order to be fully effective and provide an effective oversight of the service as a whole.” from the report
  • Policies and supervision being updated

    minor

    Some policies were not yet updated, and the provider was putting a forward plan in place for regular staff supervision.

    “Some policies were also in the process of being updated, the registered manager gave assurances these would be completed as soon as possible.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Is the replacement medicine cabinet now installed and compliant with current storage requirements?
  2. 02Have all staff medicine competency checks been completed and kept up to date?
  3. 03How often are staff supervision meetings now held, and how are missed meetings followed up?
  4. 04How are accidents, incidents and possible patterns now reviewed?
  5. 05Have the planned quality assurance questionnaires been introduced, and how are feedback and concerns acted on?

This was the first planned inspection and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; the service had no previous inspection rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 September 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Pogles Wood

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.

  1. September 2021Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Pogles Wood →

  2. December 2019

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2019.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset

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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.

“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
Sophie B., about Beckee W.
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
A previous client, about Nina R.
See live-in carers near DorsetProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.