CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Shaftesbury Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitors, admissions, PPE, testing, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Shaftesbury Rest Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control arrangements, with further work suggested on some disinfecting systems.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than giving a full assessment of the home.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, new admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, social distancing, hygiene and outbreak arrangements were being managed safely. The infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
The home worked with families on nominated visitors and garden visits. It also avoided admitting people into shared rooms and supported people and staff with information about COVID-19 testing and vaccines.
The home was not given an overall rating, and Safe was recorded as inspected but not rated. The report does not rate the other areas of care.
Family visiting arrangements
The home worked with families to agree nominated visitors and enabled garden visits for other relatives.
“The provider had worked with families to agree on nominated visitors for people and had facilitated garden visits for non-designated relatives.” from the report
Shared-room approach
The home chose not to admit people into shared rooms to support social distancing and make isolation easier if there was an outbreak.
“The provider had chosen not to admit people into shared rooms.” from the report
Testing and vaccine information
People and staff were given information and support about COVID-19 testing and vaccines so they could make informed choices.
“The registered manager gave information and support to people and staff around Covid-19 testing and vaccines.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering PPE, testing, hygiene, visitors, admissions and outbreak management.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Disinfecting systems
minorCQC signposted the home to resources to develop its approach to disinfecting using fog, mist and other systems during the pandemic.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach around the use of disinfecting using fog, mist and other systems during the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
- 01How are nominated visitors and garden visits arranged now?
- 02Does the home still avoid shared rooms, and how would it manage isolation during an outbreak?
- 03How are residents and staff currently supported with testing and vaccines?
- 04What action did the home take after CQC signposted resources about disinfecting using fog, mist and other systems?
- 05Can you show us the current infection prevention and control policy and explain how visitors and new admissions are managed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe during the COVID-19 pandemic; the other areas and an overall rating were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 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, December 2017
Shaftesbury Rest Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but staffing pressure and limited activities were noted.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 22 September 2017 without warning. They spoke with people living at the home, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, recruitment files, complaints, incidents and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, and people's health needs were supported.
The home had improved its safe rating since the previous inspection, when it was Requires Improvement. Inspectors found enough staff overall, but staff were busy on one inspection day because of sickness, vacancies and the lack of a chef. Some people also wanted more activities.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring and supportive. Staff knew people's preferences and protected their privacy and dignity.
“People told us they enjoyed the company of staff and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Improved safety
The home had improved its safe rating since the previous inspection. Risks, safeguarding concerns and incidents were monitored, with action taken to reduce harm.
“At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall and had made improvements in the 'safe' domain, which is now rated good.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans recorded people's routines, health needs and preferences. Staff supported people to remain as independent as possible.
“Care plans were comprehensive and detailed, including physical health needs and people's mental health needs.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had induction, ongoing training, supervision and competency checks to help them carry out their roles.
“Staff were supported in their role through training, induction and supervision, which helped them to remain motivated and effective in their role.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People had choices at mealtimes and generally liked the food. Staff helped people access GP, hospital and other healthcare appointments.
“People told us they enjoyed the food and were given a choice about their menu.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingThere were vacancies and no chef at the time of the inspection, so care staff helped prepare meals. Staff appeared busy on one day, although the provider said this was caused by short-notice sickness and was not ongoing.
“On the first day of inspection, people were attended to when they requested assistance with their personal care or at meal times, although care staff appeared very busy during the day” from the report
Limited activities
minorActivities were available, including themed events, but some people felt there were not enough. The home said it was working to develop this area.
“There were activities available for people, but some people felt there could be more for them to patriciate in.” from the report
Audits missed a safety issue
needs fixingThe home's earlier health and safety audits had not identified a concern with a wooden walkway. The provider raised the handrail and added another handrail during the inspection.
“However, these audits were not always effective in identifying all safety concerns.” from the report
- 01How many care staff are usually on duty during the day and at night, and have the vacancies mentioned in the report been filled?
- 02Is there now a permanent chef, and who prepares meals when the chef is unavailable?
- 03What regular activities are now available, and how are residents' individual interests used to plan them?
- 04How do you check that safety audits identify problems with equipment and access routes?
- 05How are changes in a resident's health, mobility or preferences recorded and shared with staff?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 2017 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 Shaftesbury Rest Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
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 Southampton
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 £980 to £1,350 a week. 39 can care for a couple. 11 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.