CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Sharnbrook House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that infection prevention measures were in place and said staffing levels were safe according to people and staff. They also noted COVID-19-related staffing pressures and the use of regular agency staff and recruitment.
- 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?
- Good
- 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, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and said staffing pressures were being managed.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures after receiving concerns.
The home had visitor checks, COVID-19 testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning procedures and changes to shared rooms to support social distancing. Inspectors said they were assured that infection risks were being managed.
There were staffing challenges linked to COVID-19. The home was using regular agency staff and recruiting more staff. People and staff told inspectors that staffing levels were safe.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a separate rating for Safe.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including PPE, testing, cleaning and visits.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visitor safety
Visitors had to complete checks before entering, including a negative lateral flow test, temperature check and COVID-19 screening.
“These included proof of a negative lateral flow test (LFT), a temperature check, changing in to fresh personal protective equipment (PPE)” from the report
Clean environment
Staff used cleaning checklists and managers checked them. Inspectors found the home clean and fresh during the visit.
“The service looked and smelled fresh during our visit.” from the report
Keeping people connected
People were supported to see family and friends when restrictions allowed, or to use video and telephone calls when visits were not possible.
“People were supported to see friends and family when restrictions allowed.” from the report
Staffing pressures
minorThe inspection followed concerns about staffing. The home said COVID-19-related staffing pressures were being managed through regular agency staff and recruitment.
“The registered manager was open and honest about the current challenges at the service relating to staffing.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels on each shift, and how often are regular agency staff used?
- 02What progress has been made with recruitment since the inspection?
- 03How do you currently check visitors for infection risks before they enter the home?
- 04How often are people and staff tested for COVID-19, and what happens after a positive result?
- 05How are residents supported to see family and friends when restrictions affect visits?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it was not a full service rating and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 January 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with laundry delays still being looked into.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 January 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a hairdresser, checked two care records and other records, and contacted three healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, personalised care plans, a wide range of activities and strong leadership.
People and relatives were very positive about the care. The main issue raised was the laundry service, which took longer than people wanted. The manager was exploring alternative arrangements when inspectors visited.
The previous inspection, published in August 2016, also rated the home Good. This inspection found that the legal requirements were met.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found systems for safeguarding, risk management, emergency evacuation and equipment checks.
“People and their relatives felt people were safe at Sharnbrook House.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and respect. They knew people's likes, dislikes and care preferences, and supported privacy and independence.
“Staff knew each person well, including their likes and dislikes and their preferences about the way staff gave them care and support.” from the report
Personalised choices
People were involved in their care and had choices about food, activities, redecoration and daily life. Care plans recorded their decisions and preferences.
“People made choices in all aspects of their lives, including being involved in decisions about redecoration of the home.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home provided group and individual activities, outings and entertainment. Staff supported people to continue taking part in village clubs, groups and interests.
“Staff supported people to follow their own interests.” from the report
Strong leadership
Inspectors found visible leadership, good teamwork and regular checks on care quality. Staff felt supported and involved in running the home.
“The registered manager provided very strong leadership and everyone we spoke with told us how visible she was” from the report
Staff could be busy
minorPeople and relatives said staff worked hard and were sometimes busy. Inspectors found enough staff on the day, but some people felt an extra member of staff would have helped.
“People and their relatives all commented that staff were busy and that sometimes an extra pair of hands would have made a big difference.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the laundry service since the inspection, and how quickly are clothes now returned?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels continue to meet people's needs at busy times?
- 03How are new residents' care needs assessed before they move in?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will our family be involved?
- 05What activities and links with the local village would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the care, support, premises and management of the home across all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 March 2019 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 Sharnbrook House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 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
88 live-in carers within about an hour of Bedford
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.