CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Prince George House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, recruitment checks were completed and infection controls were in place. Inspectors found mixed views about staffing, and some medicine records did not contain enough information.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans were updated. Staff had training, people were supported with food and drink, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The report says ratings for areas not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- This area was not inspected during this visit. The report says ratings for areas not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had audits, meetings, surveys and systems to monitor quality. Inspectors remained concerned that a substantial minority of staff and relatives still raised staffing levels as an issue.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Prince George House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support, but staffing concerns and incomplete topical medicines records needed attention.
The inspection was unannounced. Inspectors visited on 5 July 2022 and gathered information until 15 July. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care plans, recruitment records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. People generally said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff managed risks, supported people's health, worked with other professionals and followed infection control measures.
There were some concerns. Feedback about staffing levels was very mixed, and some relatives felt shortages had affected care. Records for some medicines applied to the skin did not always explain how often they should be used, and one person's records showed inconsistent administration.
Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit. Their previous ratings were used, so the overall Good rating stayed the same. The previous overall rating was also Good, published on 5 April 2018.
Kind and welcoming atmosphere
People and relatives generally described the home as friendly, caring and homely. Staff were said to know residents well and acknowledge visitors.
“The home has a friendly and caring feel, everyone from cleaners to senior staff on my [relatives] wing clearly know him well and always acknowledge visitors.” from the report
Good risk and safeguarding systems
Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse. Care records and risk assessments gave staff information about people's health needs, preferences and safer support.
“People were protected from abuse because staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities.” from the report
Health and professional support
The home worked with health and social care professionals. Care plans included information about appointments and specialist referrals were made when needed.
“Staff responded to changes in people's health and well-being and worked with health and social care professionals to benefit those living at the service.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment, supported testing and had arrangements to prevent or manage outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Staffing levels
needs fixingResidents, relatives and staff gave very mixed feedback about whether there were enough staff. The home had introduced flexible working, but inspectors said it still needed to ensure assessed staffing levels were enough for good-quality care.
“We are concerned that a substantial minority of both staff and relatives still raised this as an issue with us during this inspection.” from the report
Topical medicines records
needs fixingSome records did not say clearly how often medicines applied externally should be used. One person's records showed inconsistent administration.
“Records did not always contain sufficient information to ensure people received medicines to be applied externally were given correctly.” from the report
Staff meeting records
minorMinutes showed that meetings covered many subjects, but they did not show staff contributions, responses to questions or actions from earlier meetings.
“However, the minutes did not demonstrate staff input or responses to queries or feedback of actions from previous meetings.” from the report
- 01How many staff are planned for each unit on a normal day and at busy times?
- 02What has changed since the new flexible working arrangements were introduced, and how do you check that staffing is enough?
- 03How do you check that topical medicine instructions say exactly how often medicines should be applied?
- 04How do you make sure medicine administration records are completed consistently?
- 05How are staff questions, feedback and actions from previous meetings recorded and followed up?
This inspection looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 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, April 2018
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsive care and inspectors finding kind, safe and well-organised support.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 5 and 6 December 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment and training records, and management audits.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable staffing levels, respectful care, good healthcare support and systems for learning from incidents and complaints.
Responsive was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found highly personalised care, strong involvement of people and relatives, many activities and links with the local community. The overall rating stayed Good compared with the previous inspection in September 2015, while Responsive improved from Good to Outstanding.
Personalised activities
People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities inside and outside the home. Staff acted on individual wishes, including arranging special events and trips.
“The ability to make individual wishes come true was truly thoughtful and numerous examples were found of the service staff going above and beyond.” from the report
Dementia support
Staff had dementia training and the home developed activities and spaces aimed at people living with dementia. People could take part in everyday tasks and activities at different times of day.
“The impact was that staff had increased knowledge about how people could experience difficulties with their short term memory and concentration span.” from the report
End of life care
The home worked with GPs, hospice staff, people and families to plan end of life care. People's wishes were recorded and reviewed.
“Effective systems and processes were in place so people experienced a comfortable and dignified death in agreement with the wishes they had expressed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that staff protected people's privacy and dignity. Keyworkers helped staff understand individual preferences.
“We observed staff treated people with understanding and compassion.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Inspectors found medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staffing levels were assessed against people's needs and were judged sufficient.
“This showed us that the provider ensured the proper and safe use of medicines.” from the report
Staff not always visible in lounges
minorTwo relatives said they did not see staff in communal lounges when people were there. They wanted staff to be available in those areas, although inspectors concluded that staffing was sufficient and safe.
“Two relatives informed us that when visiting they did not see staff in the lounges when there were people there.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on each shift now, and how do you check this remains enough for residents' needs?
- 02How do you make sure staff are available in communal lounges as well as in residents' rooms?
- 03Which activities, community visits and clubs are currently available for someone with my relative's interests?
- 04How are my relative and our family involved in reviewing their care plan and recording their personal wishes?
- 05How would you support my relative with end of life planning and communicate with us if their needs changed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the overall rating remained Good from the September 2015 inspection, while Responsive improved to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Prince George House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 2015.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.