CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Shockerwick House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, managed visitors and admissions, followed social distancing rules, carried out testing and could prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
- 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, September 2020
Shockerwick House Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The inspection took place on 7 August 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than a full inspection of the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, personal protective equipment, social distancing, testing, cleaning and infection outbreaks safely. They also found that the infection-control policy was up to date.
The home had introduced garden visits with screens and social distancing. During a COVID-19 outbreak, people were cared for by a designated team in a specific area of the home.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. The Safe question was recorded as inspected but not rated, so this report does not assess all aspects of care or provide a new overall rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors were given PPE, had their temperatures checked and provided contact details for track and trace. Staff and contractors used a separate entrance.
“All visitors to the home were supported to use the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), supplied by the home.” from the report
Safer family visits
The home had created a garden visiting area with seating, Perspex panels and social-distancing measures. Staff cleaned the area between visits.
“A gazebo with seating and Perspex panels meant people could visit at an agreed time.” from the report
Outbreak arrangements
During a COVID-19 outbreak, a designated team supported people in a specific area of the home. The report also describes clear signs to show the level of isolation needed.
“During an outbreak of Covid 19 in the home people were supported by a designated team of staff in a specific area of the home.” from the report
Infection-control systems
Inspectors were assured about the home's PPE use, testing, cleaning, layout, admissions and infection-control policy.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection-control arrangements are currently in place for visitors, including PPE, temperature checks and contact details?
- 02How are people tested for infections, and how are staff testing arrangements managed?
- 03What happens if there is an infection outbreak, and how are residents supported during it?
- 04How are family visits arranged now, and what cleaning and social-distancing measures are used?
- 05When was the home's infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 September 2020 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, but some care plans and as-needed medicine instructions were not detailed enough.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 30 November 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, staff files, medicines records, complaints, incidents and management checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, good training, clean surroundings and kind interactions. People had access to healthcare, activities, gardens and food they enjoyed.
There were some gaps. Care plans were not always updated when people's needs changed, and some did not explain clearly how staff should respond to distress or aggression. Instructions for some as-needed medicines were also not detailed enough. The registered manager said these issues would be reviewed.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to report abuse, accidents and concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were maintained or exceeded according to the home's dependency assessment. Most people and staff said there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“There was enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking at people's eye level, supporting them at their own pace and protecting their privacy and dignity.
“We observed many positive interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People were offered choices and support with eating and drinking. Plans included food preferences and specialist guidance where needed.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and there was a clear focus on encouraging people to eat and drink well.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in music, singing, visits, trips and other activities. They could also use the gardens and maintain links with family and the local community.
“There were also regular visits from entertainers, poetry and prose groups, quizzes and day trips.” from the report
Care plans were not always up to date
needs fixingSome plans gave conflicting information about people's mobility or did not explain clearly how staff should respond to aggression. This could lead to staff responding differently.
“This meant that up to date information on people's needs were not available because care plans had not always been updated when people's needs changed.” from the report
Checks missed some problems
minorThe home had regular audits and action plans, but its monitoring systems had not identified all the care planning and medicine issues found during the inspection.
“There were robust quality assurance processes in place; however, these had not identified some of the issues we noted.” from the report
- 01How have you updated care plans so they clearly describe what staff should do if a person becomes distressed or aggressive?
- 02How do you make sure care plans are changed promptly when a person's mobility or other needs change?
- 03What information is now included in instructions for medicines given when needed, including alternatives to medicine?
- 04How do your audits check that care plans and medicine instructions are accurate and person centred?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing the care plan, and how will you record that involvement?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the overall Good rating and each individual rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 December 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 Shockerwick House Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 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
25 live-in carers within about an hour of Bath and North East Somerset
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 £1,030 to £1,320 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She enabled mum to lead a high quality life in her own home until the very end and Lena and her family became close personal friends to me and my family.”
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.