CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Potton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention, visiting arrangements, PPE, testing, admissions and COVID-19 vaccination requirements. Staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 were also discussed.
- 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, although inspectors noted good support for the registered manager from health professionals and the provider's head office.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Potton House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection controls, clean premises and safe visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home. The inspection was announced one day in advance.
Inspectors found good infection control measures. Staff had extensive training, visitors were managed through a robust process, and the home was clean and fresh. The home was also meeting requirements about COVID-19 vaccination for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit checked specific areas rather than giving a new overall quality rating.
Infection control training
Staff had extensive training in infection control and COVID-19 management. Their skills in these areas were checked regularly.
“Staff received extensive training in infection control and COVID-19 management and had their competencies in these areas regularly assessed.” from the report
Visitor safety
The home had a clear process for managing visitors and was facilitating visits in line with current guidance.
“There was a robust visitor management procedure in place to ensure people living at the service were kept safe.” from the report
Clean premises
Inspectors found the home clean and fresh, with cleaning schedules in place to maintain hygiene.
“The home was clean and fresh, and schedules were in place to ensure hygiene and cleanliness levels were maintained by staff.” from the report
COVID-19 precautions
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, providing testing, managing outbreaks and following vaccination requirements.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are infection control and COVID-19 procedures being kept up to date now?
- 02How do you check that staff remain competent in infection control and COVID-19 management?
- 03What are the current arrangements for visits, including during an infection outbreak?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 05What are the current quality ratings and findings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating or assess all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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, March 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but medicines records and quality checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 February 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience reviewed records, spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers, and checked staffing, training, safeguarding, medicines and quality checks.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because topical medicines had been given without complete records for several weeks. Inspectors also found that some audits had not identified this problem.
Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood people's needs, supported their healthcare and nutrition, and provided activities and personalised care. The home had a complaints process and worked with health and social care professionals.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions and staff protecting people's dignity.
“Our observations during the day of inspection, were of staff interacting and communicating with people in a warm and friendly manner.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans recorded people's life histories, preferences and routines. The home offered group and one-to-one activities, including sensory activities and outings.
“There was a varied programme of activities for people to take part in.” from the report
Good healthcare and nutrition
People had access to a nurse and other health professionals. Staff supported people with their dietary needs and offered freshly cooked food and choices.
“People had access to the healthcare they required.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had the training required for their roles, including dementia care training. They said they felt confident and supported.
“All the staff had received the training they required to effectively do their jobs.” from the report
Incomplete topical medicine records
seriousRecords for topical medicines had not been completed for several weeks, even though the medicines had been given. Inspectors said this created a risk because it was not always clear what medicines people had received.
“This placed people at risk as the medicines they had received were not always accurately recorded.” from the report
Quality checks missed the problem
needs fixingSome audit checklists said topical medicine records were complete when they were not. No further checks had identified the gap before the inspection.
“There were no further checks or audits which had picked up that topical MAR were not being used.” from the report
Staffing pressures
needs fixingPeople, relatives and staff gave mixed views about staffing. The manager reported recruitment difficulties and substantial use of agency staff, although inspectors saw enough staff on duty during the visit.
“The manager told us that recruitment had been difficult, and a large number of agency staff were being used.” from the report
- 01How are topical medicines recorded now, and how do you check that every dose or application is documented?
- 02What changes have been made to the medicine audits since the inspection?
- 03How many agency staff are currently being used, and how do you make sure staffing is consistent at night and when someone is off sick?
- 04How are people's preferred activities and one-to-one activities recorded and reviewed?
- 05Who is currently the registered manager, and how has the management change affected the service?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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 Potton House
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Central Bedfordshire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.