CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Bungalow
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staff did not always follow infection control requirements, including wearing masks. Inspectors also found damage in the bathroom, rats in the garden and incomplete records of evacuation drills.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff understood the person's needs and supported healthy eating, access to health services, choice and independence. Inspectors said care plans needed more information about long-term goals and aspirations.
- Caring?
- Good
- The person received kind and compassionate care. Staff respected their privacy and dignity and understood their communication and support needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and matched the person's routines, communication needs and interests. Staff supported contact with family and friends and dealt with concerns seriously.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were visible, approachable and focused on the person's needs. However, the provider did not have a formal quality check, and some people felt communication from the provider was not always consistent.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home needed to improve infection control and some safety checks.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. It was unannounced and took place on 19 and 27 April 2022. One inspector spoke with the person living there, staff and health professionals, observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, meaning some aspects were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety.
Inspectors found kind, personalised care. Staff supported the person to make choices, stay independent, access health care and enjoy activities. However, staff did not always wear the required protective equipment, parts of the home needed repair, rats were seen in the garden, not all staff had safeguarding training and some safety records were incomplete.
Kind and respectful care
Staff gave calm, compassionate support and respected the person's privacy, dignity and choices.
“The person supported received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Choice and independence
Staff helped the person make decisions, develop skills and take part in activities and interests in the local area.
“Staff supported the person to have maximum possible choice, , to be independent and have control over their own life.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans explained how the person communicated, and staff used methods the person understood and preferred.
“Care plans had individual communication plans that detailed effective and preferred methods of communication, including the approach to use for different situations.” from the report
Medicines and health support
Medicines were reviewed and recorded through established systems. Staff worked with health professionals to support the person's health and reduce medicines where appropriate.
“Staff followed systems and processes to administer, record and store medicines.” from the report
Infection control
seriousStaff did not always follow the home's policy on wearing masks. This increased the risk of infection spreading.
“The service did not always use effective infection, prevention and control measures to keep the person safe.” from the report
Garden and home maintenance
needs fixingInspectors saw rats in the garden and found cracked wood and paint around the bathroom. The garden problem affected support because staff were reluctant to take the person outside.
“During the inspection we observed there to be rats in the garden.” from the report
Safeguarding training
seriousNot all staff had been trained to recognise and report abuse, although the home had safeguarding processes in place.
“However, we found that not all staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse.” from the report
Safety records
needs fixingEvacuation drills had taken place, but the records were not always completed correctly.
“Further improvement was needed to ensure where evacuation drills were completed these were documented correctly.” from the report
Quality checks and care goals
needs fixingThe provider did not formally check the quality of care. Care plans also needed clearer information about the person's long-term goals and aspirations.
“However, there was no formal quality assurance check to ensure they were confident people were receiving good care.” from the report
- 01Have staff completed training on recognising and reporting abuse, and how do you check this?
- 02What action has been taken to stop rats being present in the garden, and can the person now use it safely?
- 03Have the damaged bathroom areas been repaired?
- 04How are staff now checked to make sure they wear the required protective equipment?
- 05How do you record evacuation drills and formally check the quality of care provided?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care home premises and the care provided to one person. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 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 The Bungalow
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 July 2020.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.