CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Regency Manor Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- There were enough staff, safe recruitment checks and suitable infection control arrangements. Risk assessments were in place but were not always detailed enough, and some records for medicines given when needed lacked full administration times.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received appropriate assessments, training-supported care, food and healthcare. Inspectors found that consent and best-interest processes followed the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, attentive and respectful. Staff offered choices, supported independence and respected people's privacy, equality and faith.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People had access to activities, outings, communication support and personalised social opportunities. Care plans were not always detailed or person-centred, although staff knew people well and a full review had started.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives, staff and professionals spoke positively about the home's leadership and culture. Management audits had not always identified shortfalls, and the provider was asked to strengthen governance and use feedback more effectively.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but care plans and some medicines records were not always complete.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 18 and 19 July 2023. Two inspectors, a pharmacist and an Expert by Experience spoke with 12 people, 7 relatives, 16 staff and 3 health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they were happy and felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, kind care, good access to healthcare, a wide range of activities and good communication with families and professionals.
There were some weaknesses. Risk assessments and care plans were not always detailed or personal enough. Some records for medicines given when needed did not include full administration times. Audits had not always found these problems, so the provider was asked to strengthen its management checks. Immediate action was started during the inspection.
The last rating was Good, published on 3 January 2020 under the previous provider. This inspection was needed because the service had re-registered under a new legal entity. The report says the Good rating remained appropriate.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, induction and training supported staff to work safely.
“There were enough staff on duty. People and their relatives told us staff were available when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff offered choices, protected privacy and supported independence.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
The home offered group and one-to-one activities, entertainers, outings and support for hobbies. Inspectors saw people enjoying activities and socialising.
“People had access to a wide range of activities which included group activities, one to one sessions, outside entertainers, and weekly outings in the minibus.” from the report
Healthcare support
People were supported to access healthcare when needed. Professionals said communication was open and concerns were referred on promptly.
“People were supported to receive health care services when they needed them.” from the report
Food and choice
People had enough to eat and drink, with choices, alternatives and lighter meals. Dietary needs and risks were recorded.
“People had enough to eat and drink. People were given a choice of meals and there were alternatives and lighter meals available for them.” from the report
Care plans not always personal enough
needs fixingSome risk assessments and care plans did not give enough detail or reflect the person's individual needs and preferences. A full review had started during the inspection.
“People had risk assessments in place for their care and support needs. However, they were not always detailed enough to ensure they were robust.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingFor some medicines given when needed, staff had not recorded the full administration times. Immediate action was taken to address this.
“There were some occasions when staff were not recording full details of times of administration of these medicines.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingThe home's audits had not always identified the care planning and medicines recording problems. The provider was asked to strengthen its governance systems and use feedback more effectively.
“Quality assurance systems in place to monitor and improve the standard of the service were not always robust.” from the report
- 01How far has the promised full review of risk assessments and care plans progressed?
- 02How will you make sure my relative's care plan reflects their individual needs, preferences and changes in condition?
- 03What checks now make sure medicines given when needed have complete administration records?
- 04How will management audits identify care planning and medicines recording problems more reliably?
- 05How is feedback from people and relatives being used to make improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; it was prompted by re-registration under a new legal entity. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 2023 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 Regency Manor Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Gooddown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- May 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 May 2022.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,300 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.