CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Princess Christian Residential and Nursing Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines, recruitment, infection control, risk assessments and accident reporting were managed safely, although feedback about staffing levels was mixed.
- Effective?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptional support with eating and drinking, health, mobility, staff training and partnership working. Some people achieved significant improvements in independence and wellbeing.
- Caring?
- Good
- People described staff as kind, gentle and respectful. Staff supported people to make choices, maintain dignity and keep as much independence as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and activities, communication support and end of life care met people's needs. This rating changed from Outstanding at the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The service was managed consistently, with audits and a positive culture. Some care plans needed more information, and resident meetings had not taken place as often during COVID-19.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Princess Christian Residential and Nursing Care Home was rated Good overall, with Outstanding effective care but a drop from Outstanding to Good for responsiveness.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 28 June 2022. Inspectors visited all three living areas. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and other records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found kind care, safe medicines practice, suitable staffing on the day, good activities and strong support with food, drink, health and end of life care.
There were some gaps in care plans, although these were corrected immediately and inspectors said the impact was low. Feedback about staffing levels was mixed. The previous overall rating was Outstanding, and the responsive rating changed from Outstanding to Good.
Food and drink
The home tailored meals to individual tastes and made texture-modified food look appealing. This helped some people regain independence with eating and drinking.
“There was a strong emphasis on the importance of eating and drinking well within the service and food was tailored to people's individual tastes.” from the report
Improved health
Inspectors found examples of people improving their mobility, speech and independence through staff support and physiotherapy.
“Through internal professionals as well as the dedication of staff, people's lives had improved.” from the report
End of life care
The home had specialist leadership for end of life care and supported people to remain in the home with dignity and professional input.
“The service had continued accreditation to the platinum level of the Gold Standards Framework for end of life care.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw people being supported to make choices and retain independence.
“Staff communication with people was warm and friendly, showing caring attitudes and engaged throughout conversations whether these were outwardly meaningful or not.” from the report
Staff development
Training, induction and supervision were well organised. The provider used accredited training to support clinical staff and maintain consistent nursing care.
“This meant management did not have to wait to recruit new clinical staff and as such people received consistent nursing care.” from the report
Mixed staffing feedback
needs fixingSome people and relatives said there were not always enough staff, and that activities sometimes did not happen or people were delayed getting up. Inspectors saw enough staff and timely call-bell responses during the visit.
“You can tell that there are staff shortages because often the activities don't happen.” from the report
Care plan gaps
minorSome care plans needed more information. The home corrected the gaps immediately, and inspectors said the impact on people was minimal because staff knew their needs well.
“Some people's care plans required further information.” from the report
Resident meetings
minorPeople gave mixed feedback about whether resident meetings took place. Meetings had not happened as often as the manager wanted during COVID-19.
“However, due to COVID-19 they had not happened as frequently as he would like.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff during breaks, mornings and activity times?
- 02What has been done to ensure activities still take place when staffing is tight?
- 03How are care plans checked and updated so that all important information is recorded?
- 04How often are resident meetings now held, and how are people's suggestions acted on?
- 05How would you support my relative with eating, drinking or a texture-modified diet if they needed it?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, all three living areas and infection prevention and control arrangements. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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, January 2020
Princess Christian Residential and Nursing Care Home was rated Outstanding; inspectors found exceptionally effective and responsive care, with safe, kind and well-led support.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days in November 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and mealtimes, checked care and medicines records, reviewed recruitment and management records, and gathered written feedback.
The home was supporting 82 people, many of whom were living with dementia. Inspectors found care was highly personalised. Staff supported people's choices, health needs, communication, activities and end of life wishes. Medicines, safeguarding, staffing and infection control systems were found to be safe.
The home was rated Outstanding overall. Effective and Responsive both improved from Good to Outstanding since the previous inspection. Safe, Caring and Well-led remained Good. Outstanding means inspectors found outcomes were consistently better than expected compared with similar services, with exceptional and distinctive practice.
Personalised care
Care plans and daily support were built around each person's history, preferences, goals and needs. Relatives were treated as partners in care.
“The care of each person was very personalised which meant they had the support needed and as desired.” from the report
Food and nutrition
The home offered a wide range of menus and adapted food to people's tastes, health needs and cultural backgrounds. Staff also made meals enjoyable and supported people who found eating difficult.
“The detail given to ensuring people experienced a great dining experience every day, every meal was outstanding.” from the report
End of life care
People's wishes were discussed and followed. The home provided individual comfort, worked with hospices and supported relatives and staff through bereavement.
“We do not leave our residents on their own in the last moments of their life, especially when relatives are not available.” from the report
Recruitment pressure
minorThe home had struggled to recruit staff because of its location and the local employment market. Inspectors found staffing levels met people's needs, but one-to-one support included agency staff who were not always well known at first.
“The provider and registered manager had struggled to recruit the staff to the service due to their locality and the local employment market.” from the report
- 01How do you maintain safe staffing levels when recruitment is difficult or staff are absent?
- 02How are agency staff introduced to a person's needs, and how do you maintain continuity for one-to-one care?
- 03How are electronic care records checked and updated when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 04How will you involve our family member and us in decisions about food, treatment, consent and end of life care?
- 05Which activities and communication methods would be suitable for our relative's interests, dementia needs, hearing, sight or language?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, including care, premises, records, staffing, medicines and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 January 2020 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 Princess Christian Residential and Nursing Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Princess Christian Residential and Nursing Care Home →
- January 2020Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Princess Christian Residential and Nursing Care Home →
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.