CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rottingdean Nursing and Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including PPE, testing, visiting, social distancing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 18 February 2021. It was carried out because the home had experienced a COVID-19 outbreak. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures rather than the full range of care.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, following social distancing and shielding rules, and managing visitors and admissions safely. Staff had received infection control training, and managers carried out audits and spot checks.
The home had a separate visiting room with glass doors and an intercom. Visitors used appointments, and the room was cleaned between visits. The home was not accepting new admissions during the outbreak, but it had plans for safe admissions.
The service was marked 'Inspected but not rated'. This does not give a new overall quality rating or ratings for the other four questions.
PPE and infection control
Staff had training in using PPE and infection control. Managers used audits and spot checks to check that procedures were followed.
“All staff had received training in the use of PPE and good practices in IPC.” from the report
Safer visiting
The home created a separate visiting room with glass doors and an intercom. Visits were arranged by appointment and the room was cleaned between visits.
“There was a visiting policy in place and a visitor appointment system to support socially distanced visits and the room was cleaned effectively between visits.” from the report
Testing and outbreak management
Staff and essential visitors were tested before entering. Managers recorded the results, and the home had arrangements for managing people who needed to isolate.
“Staff and essential visitors into the home had been required to take COVID lateral flow device tests before entry.” from the report
Plans for new admissions
Although admissions were paused during the outbreak, the home had plans to establish a person's COVID status and support them to isolate safely.
“The provider had clear plans in place about welcoming new people to the home safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are visitors tested, booked and supported during visits?
- 03How do you manage a new resident's COVID status and isolation after admission?
- 04How often are PPE use, cleaning and infection control checked, and what happens if a problem is found?
- 05What are the home's current arrangements if there is another infection outbreak?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak; it did not rate the other four questions or the service overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 2021 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, February 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with improvements still needed to information standards.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 January 2018. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines management, clean surroundings and appropriate risk assessments.
People were described as happy, relaxed and well cared for. Staff were kind, respected people's choices and dignity, supported nutrition and healthcare, and provided activities and end of life care that reflected people's wishes.
The home was asked to improve its arrangements for the Accessible Information Standard. Staff were meeting people's communication needs in practice, but had not received training and there was no related policy or procedure.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough skilled staff and safe recruitment checks. Medicines were stored, administered, recorded and audited appropriately.
“Medicines were managed safely and in accordance with current regulations and guidance.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described caring relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, routines and communication needs. Staff knew people well and adapted their approach.
“Care plans accurately recorded people's likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered varied activities and one-to-one time for people who stayed in their rooms. Families and visitors were encouraged to remain involved.
“People were supported to take part in meaningful activities.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management. Staff described an approachable culture where concerns and suggestions could be discussed.
“The provider promoted an inclusive and open culture and recognised the importance of effective communication.” from the report
Accessible information arrangements
needs fixingStaff met people's communication needs in practice, but they were not aware of the Accessible Information Standard. The home had not put related policies, procedures or training in place, and inspectors made a recommendation.
“However, none of the staff at the service were aware of the AIS and no policy, procedures or training around this had been implemented.” from the report
- 01What policies, procedures and staff training have you now put in place for the Accessible Information Standard?
- 02How would you support my relative if they have difficulty hearing, speaking, reading or understanding information?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain suitable if people's needs change or staff are absent?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan and end of life wishes?
- 05Which activities and one-to-one support would be available if my relative preferred to stay in their room?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care, and all five quality areas were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 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.
Every inspection of Rottingdean Nursing and Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Rottingdean Nursing and Care Home →
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Rottingdean Nursing and Care Home →
- November 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.