CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The New Bungalow
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks to people and the environment had been assessed and reduced. There were enough staff, recruitment checks had been completed, medicines were managed safely and infection control was followed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff had relevant training and support, people were helped to eat and drink well, and staff worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind and caring interactions. Staff respected people's privacy and dignity, understood how people communicated and involved them in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories and changing needs. People chose activities, had regular care reviews and were supported to follow their interests and maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals gave positive feedback about the home's leadership. The manager used audits, feedback and incident reviews to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 9 July 2018. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and care staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, recruitment records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities, some also having physical disabilities, although it could support up to six people. Inspectors found suitable safeguarding and risk management, enough staff, safe medicines practice and good infection control.
People's care was described as effective, caring and personalised. Staff supported people to make choices, stay independent, take part in activities and access healthcare. Inspectors also found positive management, regular checks and good feedback from people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was rated Good. This was unchanged from the previous inspection.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff and clear assessments for risks such as going out into the community and bathing. The home also supported people to take positive risks.
“Risks to people, and the environment had been assessed and mitigated.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Staff knew people well and responded to their emotional needs. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity and people's preferred ways of communicating.
“During our inspection, we observed numerous kind and caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's backgrounds and current needs. People were supported to choose activities, attend college, visit places they enjoyed and become more independent.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Positive leadership
The report found a supportive culture and regular quality checks. Feedback from people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals was consistently positive.
“People, their relatives, staff and healthcare professionals were united in their feedback that the service was well-led.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative to take positive risks while keeping them safe?
- 02How do you manage and review complex medicines, and how would you involve us in any medicine changes?
- 03How would staff communicate with my relative if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 04What activities, education or community opportunities could my relative choose each week?
- 05How often would my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how would we be involved?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 August 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; this focused inspection found that earlier safety problems had been fixed, including safer medicines and risk checks.
Inspectors made an unannounced focused visit on 8 February 2017. They checked whether improvements promised after the November 2015 inspection had been made. They reviewed records and spoke with three people, the registered manager, staff and an agency worker.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People said they felt safe. Inspectors found medicines were given safely, risks were assessed, fire checks were completed, equipment was maintained and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
The previous inspection had found one breach of Regulation 12 about safe care and treatment. This inspection found that the provider had taken action and was now meeting the legal requirements. The overall rating shown in the report was Good.
Medicines were managed safely
Inspectors found clear medicines procedures, trained staff and guidance for medicines prescribed as needed. There were also safe arrangements for medicines taken on family visits.
“People received their medicines safely and when they should. There was a clear medicines policy in place.” from the report
Risks were assessed
The home had assessed risks linked to people's care and recorded the steps staff should take to keep people safe and healthy.
“Action had been taken to ensure all risks associated with people's care and support were assessed” from the report
Safe environment
The home and its equipment were well maintained. Fire tests and drills were being completed, and equipment was regularly serviced.
“People benefited from living in an environment and using equipment that was well maintained.” from the report
Kind and responsive staff
Inspectors saw a happy and relaxed atmosphere. Staff were patient and responded to people's needs, including when people communicated without words.
“There were good interactions between staff and people. People were relaxed in the company of staff” from the report
Accidents were reviewed
Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed. Senior management looked for patterns and trends to reduce the chance of them happening again.
“The registered manager reviewed each accident and incident report, to ensure that appropriate action had been taken” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorThe home had 1.8 staff vacancies. Staffing could fall from four to three daytime staff, although the report says gaps were covered and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“There were 1.8 staff vacancies at the time of the inspection and gaps in the rota were covered by existing staff or the provider's bank staff” from the report
- 01How many staff vacancies are there now, and how would you cover a gap in the rota?
- 02How do you check that medicines prescribed as needed are given consistently and safely?
- 03How often are fire safety checks and drills completed now?
- 04How are individual risks reviewed when a person's needs or activities change?
- 05What were the findings of the latest comprehensive inspection covering Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe only; the visit checked improvements after the previous breach, and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2017 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 New Bungalow
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.