CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Scotch Dyke Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection-control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 11 March 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, shielding, social distancing, PPE, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks. The home was clean and tidy, and communal areas had been arranged to support social distancing.
Staff had received extra infection-control training and regular checks on handwashing and using PPE. People and staff took part in the testing programme, and the home worked with local health professionals to help maintain medicine supplies.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the other four questions.
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy. A dedicated housekeeping team cleaned allocated areas, including frequently touched surfaces.
“The home was clean and tidy. A designated housekeeping team worked through allocated parts of the home to maintain cleanliness and good infection control.” from the report
PPE supplies and use
Staff were seen using appropriate PPE, and inspectors found that supplies were plentiful throughout the home.
“Staff were seen to be wearing appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), and there was a plentiful supply evident throughout the home.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had extra infection-control training and regular checks on handwashing and putting on and removing PPE.
“All staff had received additional training in infection prevention and control and had completed regular competency checks for effective handwashing and the donning and doffing of PPE.” from the report
Testing arrangements
People and staff took part in the testing programme. The manager checked test frequency and results.
“Staff and people were fully engaged in the appropriate COVID-19 testing regime.” from the report
Medicine planning
The home contacted local health professionals and its pharmacy to plan for possible medicine shortages.
“This enabled plans to be put in place to ensure people did not run out of medicines when stocks were potentially minimal.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are cleaning schedules and cleaning of frequently touched areas checked now?
- 02How often do staff receive infection-control training and competency checks for handwashing and PPE?
- 03How are COVID-19 or other infection tests for people and staff monitored and recorded now?
- 04What arrangements are in place with the pharmacy to prevent people running out of medicines?
- 05What are the current visiting arrangements and how do you prevent infections being brought into the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not rate the overall service or the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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 personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 30 August 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, training records, complaints and quality checks.
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, good support with health and nutrition, respectful care and activities that reflected people's interests.
The previous inspection in August 2016 found problems with medicines, consent, activities and quality checks. This inspection found that these areas had improved and that the overall rating had risen from Requires Improvement to Good.
Safer medicines
The home had addressed earlier medicines problems. Records for people managing their own medicines, as-needed medicines and medicines with a limited shelf life had improved.
“We observed staff supporting people with their medicines and saw that staff administered medicines safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff protected people's privacy, spoke gently and offered reassurance. People were encouraged to make choices and keep as much independence as possible.
“We saw staff spent time speaking with people and sharing jokes while supporting them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included information about people's histories, relationships, personalities and preferences. Staff knew how people liked to be supported.
“Life history information allowed staff to have a good understanding of people which enhanced the personalised care which people received.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home had improved activities after earlier concerns. People could take part in gardening, baking, singing, reminiscence, quizzes and arts and crafts, or choose not to join in.
“A varied and engaging programme of activities ensured people's social and psychological needs were met and reduced the risk of social isolation.” from the report
Better oversight
The home had introduced regular checks covering areas such as medicines, care plans and infection control. These checks were used to identify trends and improve care.
“Quality assurance systems were now in place and were used to improve the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you checking that medicines for people who manage their own medicines are recorded correctly?
- 02How do you assess consent and mental capacity when equipment such as bedrails is needed?
- 03Which activities are currently available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and abilities?
- 04How do you use complaints, surveys and quality checks to make changes?
- 05How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when staff are absent?
This was an unannounced inspection looking at the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions, with improvements checked against concerns from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 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 Scotch Dyke Residential Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Scotch Dyke Residential Home →
- February 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Scotch Dyke Residential Home →
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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.