CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Rustington Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing, managing outbreaks and following infection control arrangements. They also looked at staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rustington Hall was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted, announced inspection of infection prevention and control. Inspectors also asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 and whether these affected care.
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy. Cleaning schedules covered frequently touched areas. Staff had suitable infection control training and were observed using protective equipment correctly.
The home had arrangements for safe visiting, including checking COVID-19 passports for visiting professionals. The manager had supported regular visits and managed outbreak risks by isolating people and separating areas.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a quality rating for the home.
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, with cleaning schedules covering frequently touched areas.
“There were robust cleaning schedules inclusive of high touch point areas, to promote safe infection control practices.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff had received infection prevention and control training and were seen using protective equipment correctly.
“Staff had received all appropriate infection prevention and control training.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home had procedures for visits and supported people to see visitors safely and regularly during the pandemic.
“The registered manager has facilitated visits for people safely and regularly during the pandemic.” from the report
Outbreak management
The home used isolation and separated areas to manage risks from outbreaks.
“The registered manager had managed risks to people from outbreaks through appropriate isolation and separation of areas within the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What staffing pressures are you experiencing now, and how are you making sure they do not affect people's care?
- 02How do you currently check visitors and professionals before they enter the home?
- 03How would you isolate people and separate areas if there were another infection outbreak?
- 04How often are frequently touched areas cleaned, and how do you check that cleaning has been completed?
- 05How do you make sure new admissions are tested and admitted safely?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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, May 2021
Rustington Hall was rated Good overall; inspectors found outstanding personalised care but medicines management still required improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 13 and 14 April 2021. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and visiting health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
People and relatives were very positive about the home. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, good staffing, effective healthcare support and strong leadership. Personalised activities, communication support and end of life care were particular strengths.
The main weakness was medicines management. Some medicine records were incomplete, guidance for some as-needed medicines was unclear, and some medicines had been missed because they were out of stock. The report says action was taken after the inspection, but CQC planned to check that these improvements lasted.
The overall Good rating means the service was meeting the expected standard overall. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Well-led were Good and Responsive was Outstanding. The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, and the two earlier regulatory breaches had been resolved.
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and adapted care, activities and communication to individual preferences and needs.
“Detailed individual person-centred care plans had been developed, enabling staff to support people in line with their needs and preferences.” from the report
End of life support
Inspectors found highly individualised support at the end of life. People's wishes were recorded and respected, and families received thoughtful support and information.
“People received outstanding and individualised care at the end of their lives.” from the report
Respect and choice
People were involved in planning their care and had control over many everyday decisions. Staff supported independence and treated people respectfully.
“People were actively involved in planning and reviewing their care.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home continued activities during COVID-19 restrictions and adapted them to people's interests. Staff also helped people keep in touch with family and friends.
“Even with the restrictions due to COVID-19 activities had continued and adapted.” from the report
Handling complaints
People knew how to raise concerns, and the complaints reviewed by inspectors had been investigated and followed through.
“Each complaint had been investigated thoroughly and any actions were followed through to completion.” from the report
Medicine records and supply
seriousSome medicine records were incomplete, some guidance for as-needed medicines was missing or unclear, and some people missed medicines because they were out of stock. The report says there was no evidence of harm, but inspectors were not fully assured that medicines were always given consistently.
“Some people had missed their medication because it was out of stock.” from the report
Recording modified meals
needs fixingStaff did not always record the specific meal given to people on a pureed diet. Inspectors raised this with the chef and manager.
“We noticed that on occasion staff had not recorded the specific meal served to people on a pureed diet.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that all medicines are recorded correctly, including the position of transdermal patches?
- 02What are the current protocols for deciding when as-needed medicines should be given, and how are staff checked on this?
- 03How do you make sure medicines do not run out, and what happens if a medicine is unavailable?
- 04How do you check that the specific meal served to each person on a pureed diet is recorded?
- 05What evidence can you show that the medicine improvements made after the inspection have been sustained?
This was an unannounced inspection that considered all five CQC questions and was prompted partly by concerns about moving and handling, choice, modified diets and oral care. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 May 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.
Every inspection of Rustington Hall
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 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 12 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.