CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Donnington Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found improved risk assessments, safer recruitment, suitable medicine management, infection controls and enough staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not looked at during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not looked at during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not looked at during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective quality checks, an improvement plan and better oversight of risks. People, families and staff were involved, and professionals reported improved leadership and partnership working.
What inspectors found, March 2021
The Donnington Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found improved safety and leadership, with some training and notification work still to complete.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 19 March 2021. One inspector and an Expert by Experience reviewed records, observed care, and spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals.
The inspection looked only at Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found better risk assessments, safer recruitment, suitable medicine systems, infection controls and enough staff. They also found stronger audits and an action plan for ongoing improvements.
Both inspected areas were rated Good. The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, with three breaches, but inspectors found enough improvement for the provider to be no longer in breach. The other three question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Better risk management
Risk assessments had improved for issues including falls, choking, malnutrition, dehydration and pressure damage. Managers checked care records regularly and created action plans where changes were needed.
“Improvement was made to risk assessments for malnutrition and dehydration, pressure area prevention and management, falls and choking.” from the report
Safer recruitment
The required checks were present in the staff files inspectors examined. Recruitment audits were also in place.
“More robust checks and oversight of recruitment meant that all the necessary information under the regulation was sought and copied or recorded.” from the report
Good safeguarding and medicines systems
People said they felt safe. Staff knew how to report abuse, and inspectors found medicines were ordered, stored, given and recorded correctly.
“Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and recorded in the correct way.” from the report
Stronger leadership and oversight
The home used audits and a continuous improvement plan to track risks and actions. Inspectors found good oversight of incidents and accidents.
“There was a continuous improvement action plan. All required improvements were logged on the plan.” from the report
Keeping families informed
Families said they received regular updates during lockdowns and could contact the home with questions. People also had meetings and other ways to stay in touch with relatives.
“The management team have kept in regular contact with weekly letters updating us on developments and changes, and have always been on hand to answer any questions if needed.” from the report
Some training was still outstanding
minorThe improvement plan identified extra training for nursing and senior care staff. Some training had started or was planned, so families may want to check what has now been completed.
“The action plan identified the need for additional training for nursing and senior care staff in topics such as falls, diabetes, accountability and care plan training.” from the report
Some notifications used the wrong form
minorThe manager had reported required events, but sometimes used an incorrect form. The manager said they would review the relevant guidance.
“Although the registered manager had reported these events to us, they had sometimes used the incorrect form.” from the report
- 01Which of the additional training topics identified in the action plan have now been completed?
- 02How do you check that required notifications are sent using the correct form?
- 03How often are my relative's risk assessments and care records reviewed?
- 04How will you keep our family informed about our relative's health and welfare?
- 05What was the rating for Caring, Effective and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 March 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, May 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but safety, recruitment and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 8 and 9 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment files, training records, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People generally received kind care, were treated with dignity, had their healthcare needs met and could raise concerns. Staff understood safeguarding, medicines were usually handled appropriately and people had personalised care plans.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led, leading to an overall Requires Improvement rating. Inspectors found that pressure care and hydration support did not always follow care plans. Recruitment checks were incomplete, care records were not always accurate and quality systems did not consistently identify or fix problems.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw friendly, compassionate interactions and found that privacy and dignity were respected.
“We observed kind and friendly interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Good healthcare support
People were referred to health professionals when needed. Staff knew about people's health and worked with other services.
“People were referred to various health professionals in good time to address any health or changing needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, communication needs and important personal information. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“Each care plan was based on a full assessment, included individual preferences and choices, and demonstrated the person had been involved in drawing up their plan.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff knew how to recognise abuse and what to do if someone was at risk. People said they felt safe in the home.
“Staff knew what actions to take if they felt people were at risk, including who they would report this to.” from the report
Pressure care and hydration
seriousInspectors found that care did not always follow plans for repositioning people at risk of pressure ulcers or prompting people to drink. This created a risk that important care would be missed.
“We could not be assured that appropriate action had been taken to mitigate these risks in line with the person's care plan.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
seriousThe staff files reviewed did not always contain full employment histories or enough information about previous conduct. This meant the home could not always show that staff were suitable before employment.
“We therefore could not always be assured that the provider was following safe recruitment practices.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
needs fixingAudits identified repeated recording problems, but the actions taken did not always prevent them happening again. Call bell delays were also not properly investigated.
“However, we found these were not always effective.” from the report
Records not always accurate
needs fixingSome care records did not match the equipment in use or did not contain important settings. Conflicting information could have led staff to provide care incorrectly.
“People's care records were not always accurate and up to date.” from the report
Activities not always reliable
minorPeople and relatives said some activities did not take place when scheduled or did not meet individual needs. The home said it was reviewing activities.
“There was a programme to engage people in activities, maintain their social skills and achieve emotional wellbeing.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that repositioning and hydration support are completed exactly as set out in each person's care plan?
- 02Have all staff recruitment files been completed with full employment histories and satisfactory conduct checks before staff start work?
- 03How do you check that care records and equipment instructions agree, especially for pressure-relieving mattresses?
- 04What action is taken when audits find missing food, fluid or care records, and how do you know the problem has been fixed?
- 05How are activities now planned and checked so they meet individual needs and take place when scheduled?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and setting ratings for the whole service. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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 The Donnington Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 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
42 live-in carers within about an hour of West Berkshire
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 £1,260 a week. 36 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“Titus has compassion, patience, a great sense of humour and a very professional attitude.”
“Barbara treated my mother-in-law with enormous love and compassion and provided an environment where she could feel safe and seen”
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.