CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Quayside
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control and detailed guidance for managing individual risks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission and care was planned using mental health support approaches. Staff had relevant training, and people were supported with nutrition, healthcare and informed choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people's backgrounds, preferences and support needs. People were treated with dignity and respect and were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's health needs, preferences and routines. People were supported to develop life skills, maintain relationships, communicate in ways they understood and make complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a clear management structure and regular monitoring of quality and safety. The home worked with health, social care, police and other local organisations.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Quayside was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection carried out over three visits by one inspector. The inspector spoke with two people, the registered manager and four care staff. Other people living at the home declined to speak. Records about care, medicines, staff recruitment, risks and the running of the home were reviewed.
The inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, and care plans gave staff clear guidance about people's mental health needs and risks.
People received personalised care and were supported to make choices, build independence and access healthcare. Staff were described as caring and respectful. The home had a clear management structure and systems to monitor quality.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published on 6 December 2016.
Support with risks
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about anxiety, behaviour and ways to reduce risks. People were also encouraged to develop their own strategies for coping with stressful situations.
“People's care plans contained detailed guidance around behavioural support.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff adapted their approach to each person and took account of their preferences, including preferred staff and support with daily routines.
“Staff were receptive to people's needs. They adapted their approach according to who they were supporting and how that person was feeling.” from the report
Promoting independence
People were supported to set goals, develop life skills and move towards more independent living. The report says six people had moved to alternative accommodation over the previous six years.
“Over the past six years, staff had successfully supported six people to move onto alternative accommodation placements after living at the service.” from the report
Respect and privacy
People had privacy in their bedrooms and personal communications. They were supported to make their own choices and to be as independent as possible.
“People were supported to be as independent as possible. People were free to come and go from the service as they pleased, spending their time following their own individual pursuits.” from the report
Strong oversight
The registered manager used audits, staff meetings and feedback from people to identify improvements. The home also worked with external professionals and local organisations.
“The registered manager carried out a series of regular audits to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and update my relative's care plan, including guidance about anxiety, behaviour and possible risks?
- 02How do you decide how many staff are needed for each person's daily activities and appointments?
- 03How do you make sure medicines, including as-required medicines, are only given when needed and are recorded correctly?
- 04What life skills goals could you help my relative work towards, and how would you measure progress?
- 05How would you plan end-of-life care if my relative needed it, given that nobody at the inspection required this support?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection covering all five key questions, but only two people gave limited feedback and the other residents declined to speak. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 August 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Quayside was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a small amount of care plan detail needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 2 November 2016. One inspector observed care, spoke with people and staff, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training and positive relationships between people and staff.
People were involved in their care, daily routines and goals. They were supported to build skills, use local services and maintain relationships. The report also says one care plan needed more detail, and some safety certificates were not available during the visit but were supplied shortly afterwards.
Kind relationships
People appeared comfortable and happy with staff. Staff knew people's needs and preferences well.
“People looked comfortable, relaxed and happy in their home and with the people they lived with.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped set their own goals and were supported to build skills, follow interests and live more independently.
“The emphasis was very much on people setting their own goals and how staff would assist them in that.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given safely. Staff who administered medicines had received training.
“People's medicines were administered safely.” from the report
Good leadership
The manager and staff shared a clear focus on person-centred care. Feedback and incidents were used to improve the service.
“The provider had a robust quality assurance system in place and gathered information about the quality of the service from a variety of sources” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingInspectors said one care plan did not contain enough detail about the person's condition and behaviours that could cause harm. The manager and provider completed the missing assessment information promptly.
“We raised one comment with the registered manager about one care plan, which we thought needed more detail about the persons condition” from the report
Certificates not available at the visit
minorCertificates for electrical installations and gas appliances were not available when inspectors visited. The home supplied them shortly afterwards.
“At the time of our visit the certificates relating to the electrical installations and gas appliances were not available.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure care plans include enough detail about behaviours that could cause harm?
- 02How often are care plans reviewed when a person's needs or goals change?
- 03Can you show us the current certificates for electrical installations, gas appliances and fire safety?
- 04How are people's medicine preferences recorded and checked?
- 05What staffing levels and on-call arrangements are in place, including when someone needs extra support or an escort to an appointment?
This was an unannounced inspection of the home's overall quality, covering all five CQC questions; each question was rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 2016 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 Quayside
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 September 2012.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.