CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Piers
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2019
The Piers was rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some medicines records needing improvement.
This was a planned inspection on 21 August and 3 September 2019. One inspector met all three people living at the home, observed care, spoke with staff and managers, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and quality records. Relatives and health professionals also gave feedback.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, detailed risk plans, safe medicines systems, and care that promoted choice, communication and independence.
There were some gaps in medicines records. Not all opened medicines had been dated, and some handwritten medicine entries had not been checked and countersigned. The manager updated the process immediately and planned workshops for staff. The home used some restrictive interventions as a last resort, in a person-centred way.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff interacting warmly with people and respecting their privacy, dignity and choices.
“Our observations showed people liked the staff, who knew them well and provided their support and care with warmth, kindness, patience, respect and dignity.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, develop skills and become more independent in everyday tasks.
“People were supported and enabled to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff understood how people communicated, including through pictures, symbols and Makaton, and used this to support daily choices.
“People had detailed, individualised communication plans and pictorial profile books that included the use of photo's, pictures and visual aids” from the report
Supportive leadership
Staff, relatives and health professionals described the home as well-led, with systems for feedback, audits and learning from incidents.
“There were robust quality monitoring systems in use which focused on improving outcomes for people.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingNot all opened medicines had been dated, and some handwritten administration entries had not been checked and countersigned. The manager updated the process immediately and planned staff workshops.
“The service had a process for staff to date and sign medicines once they were opened, however this had not been completed for all medicines.” from the report
Practical staff training
minorStaff could access the training they needed, but some said they preferred more face-to-face and practical training. One staff member also felt competency checks could be improved.
“The training could be better…you do not have to prove your competencies.” from the report
- 01What checks now make sure every opened medicine is dated correctly?
- 02How are handwritten medicine administration entries checked and countersigned?
- 03What practical and face-to-face training do staff receive, and how are their competencies assessed?
- 04What restrictive interventions might be used, and how is it shown that they remain a last resort and in the person's best interests?
- 05How will you support my relative's individual communication method, choices, activities and independence?
This was a planned inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions; the home did not provide nursing care, although the premises and personal care were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 October 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care, but the home did not have a registered manager and some staff training was incomplete.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 January 2017. One inspector met both residents, observed care, spoke with staff and managers, and received feedback from two relatives. The inspector also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff training and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks and medicines problems. Staff understood people's communication, treated them with dignity and supported activities, healthcare and personal choices.
There were two areas to watch. The home did not have a registered manager, and some staff had not yet completed Makaton, positive behaviour support and physical intervention training. The provider was recruiting a registered manager and had plans for the missing training.
Safe medicines and risk planning
Medicines were given as prescribed and stored securely. Care plans covered health conditions, activities and behaviours that might need a positive response.
“Medicines were managed safely and stored securely. People received their medicines as prescribed by their GP.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw calm, friendly interactions. Staff knew when people wanted company or privacy and treated them with dignity.
“There was a calm relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the house. We saw positive caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff understood verbal and non-verbal communication, including Makaton and picture-based systems. Care plans explained people's individual ways of communicating and making choices.
“People's care plans were personalised and focused on them as individuals.” from the report
Activities and health support
People were supported with activities they enjoyed and had access to healthcare professionals. Health conditions were monitored in line with care plans.
“People had access to specialist health care professionals, such as community mental health and learning disability nurses, chiropodists, and specialist consultants.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe previous manager had left in September 2016. An acting manager was covering the role, but they also planned to step down, so the provider was recruiting a registered manager.
“The service does not have a registered manager and this was an area for improvement.” from the report
Incomplete specialist training
needs fixingSome staff working across the two homes had not yet attended training in Makaton, positive behaviour support and physical intervention. The provider said this training was planned or being sourced.
“some staff in the team across the two homes had not yet attended Makaton, positive behaviour support and physical intervention training.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now been appointed, and who is responsible for the home until that happens?
- 02Have all staff completed Makaton, positive behaviour support and physical intervention training?
- 03How do you make sure new or temporary staff understand each person's communication and sensory needs?
- 04How are medicines and any as-needed medicines checked now?
- 05How are care plans reviewed when a person's anxiety, behaviour or needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, staff, medicines and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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 Piers
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2011.
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
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.