Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Potton House

Goodpublished 22 March 2019, 7 years ago

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

The five questions inspectors ask
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.
The latest report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are infection control and COVID-19 procedures being kept up to date now?
  2. 02How do you check that staff remain competent in infection control and COVID-19 management?
  3. 03What are the current arrangements for visits, including during an infection outbreak?
  4. 04How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
  5. 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.

An earlier report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Incomplete topical medicine records

    serious

    Records 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 fixing

    Some 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 fixing

    People, 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are topical medicines recorded now, and how do you check that every dose or application is documented?
  2. 02What changes have been made to the medicine audits since the inspection?
  3. 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?
  4. 04How are people's preferred activities and one-to-one activities recorded and reviewed?
  5. 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Potton House

4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Potton House →

  2. March 2019Goodstayed Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Potton House →

  3. July 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. March 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. May 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. May 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. January 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. March 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. January 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  12. October 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  13. 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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!”
Bridget S., about Nyarai N.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
Siobhan D., about Sithabile Tabile M.
See live-in carers near Central BedfordshireProfiles, 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.