CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Skylark House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Skylark House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care and kind staff, but not enough social support and weaknesses in quality monitoring.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 June and 25 July 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicines records and management systems.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff to provide safe care, risks were managed, medicines were given as prescribed, and infection control arrangements were in place. People and relatives described staff as kind and caring.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Staff were often too busy to spend meaningful time with people, and activities did not always match individual interests. Quality systems had not identified this problem. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed effectively. Staff followed guidance when using equipment and supporting people with health needs.
“Risks to people were identified, assessed and monitored effectively.” from the report
Medicines and end of life support
People received medicines as prescribed, including medicines needed at particular times. Arrangements were also in place for symptom control and pain relief at the end of life.
“There were effective systems in place to ensure that people always had access to the medicines they needed.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed staff supporting people gently and reassuringly.
“People spoke highly of the staff and described them as kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised care records
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. They were updated when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were updated regularly and when people's needs changed.” from the report
Open management
The manager responded to poor practice and described a willingness to apologise, learn and make improvements. People and relatives also praised the home's leadership.
“If we get things wrong, we must apologise and learn from our mistakes, there's no point in being defensive, it's better to be open and make improvements.” from the report
Not enough social interaction
seriousPeople were receiving personal care but did not always get the social contact and occupation they needed. Staff, people and relatives said staff were often too busy for meaningful time together.
“There were not always enough staff deployed to meet people's needs for social stimulation and interaction.” from the report
Activities were not individual enough
needs fixingSome activities were available, but people said they were repetitive, stereotyped or not suited to their interests. When activities were not happening, some people had little to occupy them.
“For those who were not taking part, and when activities were not happening, there was little occupation for people.” from the report
Quality checks missed the problem
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems did not identify the repeated concern that staff were too busy to provide social interaction and occupation.
“The provider's systems for monitoring quality had not identified this theme.” from the report
Some end of life plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome plans mentioned cultural and religious needs but did not explain what those needs were or how staff should respect them.
“Not all records relating to end of life care were well personalised, this meant that staff did not always have the guidance they needed.” from the report
- 01How many permanent and agency staff are currently available to spend time with residents for social interaction, not only personal care?
- 02How are activities adapted to each person's interests, abilities and cultural preferences?
- 03What action plan was sent to CQC about Regulation 18 staffing, and what improvements have been completed?
- 04How do quality checks now identify whether residents are receiving enough social contact and meaningful occupation?
- 05How have end of life care plans been updated to record each person's cultural and religious wishes in practical detail?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 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, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements during a COVID-19 outbreak, but noted some isolation and distancing concerns.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 6 January 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured about the use of personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, safe admissions, visits and the management of outbreaks. Staff monitored people's temperatures and oxygen levels twice a day. Staff also covered rota gaps so people continued to receive care.
There was one concern about shielding and social distancing. Some people who had tested positive were not isolating with their bedroom doors closed and were not keeping apart from others. The manager acted immediately when this was raised.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report does not give a new overall rating or a full rating for all five areas of care.
Infection-control arrangements
The home had updated infection-control policies, regular staff updates and an infection-control lead who helped staff follow current guidance.
“The registered manager had followed current guidance in relation to infection prevention and control (IPC).” from the report
Cleaning
The home increased cleaning of frequently touched areas and carried out extra deep cleaning during the outbreak.
“The registered manager had implemented enhanced cleaning schedules to incorporate regular cleaning of high touch areas and additional deep cleaning.” from the report
Continuity of care
Staff covered gaps in the rota during the outbreak, helping people continue to receive care.
“staff covered shortfalls in the rota to ensure people received continuity of care.” from the report
Contact with loved ones
The manager supported people to keep in touch with loved ones and managed essential visits safely during the outbreak.
“The registered manager ensured people received support to maintain contact with loved ones during the outbreak” from the report
Isolation and distancing
needs fixingSome people who had tested positive were not isolating with their bedroom doors closed and were not keeping apart from others. The manager took immediate action after inspectors raised this.
“Not all people were isolating with their bedroom doors closed and were seen to not socially distance themselves from others.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people who test positive isolate safely, including keeping bedroom doors closed where needed?
- 02How do you make sure people maintain social distance during an infection outbreak?
- 03What staffing pressures are you experiencing now, and how will you cover any rota gaps?
- 04How do you keep your infection-control guidance up to date and communicate changes to staff?
- 05How are visits and contact with relatives managed during an outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures during a COVID-19 outbreak; it was inspected but not rated and did not provide a full assessment of all areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 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.
Every inspection of Skylark House
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- October 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2016.
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.