CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Potteries
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved staffing, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments, safeguarding systems and infection control. Some people said they sometimes waited for assistance, and a few 'when required' medicines lacked full details on the electronic system.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, regular meetings, effective audits and good work with health and social care professionals. The management team listened to people and acted on concerns and suggestions.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-led care, with some people waiting for call bells and a few medicines records needing attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6, 13 and 21 December 2022. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led, following concerns about call bells, staffing and medicines. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and agency staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found staffing had improved, call bells were usually answered promptly, medicines were generally managed safely, and people said they felt safe. They also found suitable safeguarding, risk management, infection control and recruitment arrangements.
A few 'when required' medicines did not yet have full person-specific details on the electronic system. Some people said they sometimes waited for assistance. Inspectors found no evidence that these concerns had put people at risk of harm.
The overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection in 2019. The report says improvements had been made after earlier recommendations about staffing, 'when required' medicines and staff meetings.
Improved staffing
Staff told inspectors staffing levels enabled them to provide the care people needed. Staffing met or exceeded the levels set by the provider's dependency tool.
“Staffing levels day and night met or exceeded the levels set through the provider's dependency tool, which was reviewed following clinical meetings.” from the report
People felt safe
People looked comfortable with staff and everyone inspectors spoke with said they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures and training were in place.
“Everyone we spoke with said they felt safe at The Potteries.” from the report
Safe risk management
Care plans covered individual risks and were reviewed monthly or after changes and incidents. Emergency plans and premises safety checks were also in place.
“People received the care they needed to manage risks safely and in line with their preferences.” from the report
Open management
Managers were available to people, relatives and staff. The home used meetings, surveys, audits and regular reports to understand and improve the service.
“The registered manager made a point of being available for people, relatives and staff to speak with.” from the report
Working with other services
The management team worked with local authority, NHS commissioning and safeguarding teams. Working with health and social care professionals was routine.
“The management team worked openly and constructively with local authority and NHS commissioning and safeguarding teams.” from the report
Some waits for call bells
minorAlthough staff usually answered call bells promptly, some people said they sometimes waited for help. The manager monitored response times and investigated lengthy delays.
“People told us they sometimes had to wait when they called for assistance.” from the report
Incomplete records for some medicines
needs fixingMost 'when required' medicines had detailed personalised instructions, but a few were missing from the electronic system or lacked person-specific details. The manager acted when inspectors raised this.
“Detailed, personalised protocols were in place for most PRN medicines, although a few had not been added to the electronic system or did not have person-specific details recorded.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells being answered now, and what happens when there is a delay?
- 02Does every 'when required' medicine now have a personalised protocol recorded on the electronic system?
- 03How do you check staffing levels on each shift, including when agency staff are needed?
- 04How can residents and relatives raise concerns or suggest changes, and how will we be told what was done?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 2023 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were being managed during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home.
The inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, carrying out testing, following social distancing and shielding rules, and managing infection outbreaks. The building was clean, in good repair and arranged so floors could be isolated if needed.
The home was experiencing an outbreak during the inspection. Visiting restrictions were in place, but essential care givers could still visit under the arrangements described in the report. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control leadership
Two staff members acted as infection prevention and control champions. They checked staff practice, attended organisation-wide meetings and completed audits.
“Two members of staff held the role of IPC champions.” from the report
Protective equipment and cleanliness
Staff had access to protective equipment and inspectors saw it being used correctly. The environment was clean and in good repair.
“Staff had access to personal protective equipment, such as gloves and masks, and we observed them using it correctly.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
Essential care givers could continue visiting during restrictions linked to an outbreak, with testing and risk assessments in place.
“Most people had a family or friend designated as an essential care giver.” from the report
Managing changing guidance
The organisation had a COVID-19 team that kept policies up to date and explained changes to staff and managers.
“The organisation had a COVID-19 team that was able to immediately respond to government changes and kept policy up to date and staff informed of any impact of changes.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Is the home currently experiencing an infection outbreak, and what visiting arrangements would apply if one occurred?
- 02How would an essential care giver visit, and what testing or risk assessment would be required?
- 03How are COVID-19-related staffing pressures affecting the number and continuity of staff caring for residents?
- 04How often are infection prevention and control checks carried out, and what happens if a problem is found?
- 05How would the home support visits outside the home, including testing and risk assessments?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the report was not a full assessment of all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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 Potteries
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 October 2013.
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.