CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Torpoint Nursing Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks, medicines, infection control and staffing were managed safely, although the provider said it would strengthen checks for gaps in job applicants' employment history.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in, and staff received training. Inspectors found that dining did not always respect people's needs or promote their independence, and staff knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was limited.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw compassionate support, and found that privacy, dignity, independence and people's individual beliefs were generally respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed with people and families. People had access to activities, communication support and compassionate end-of-life care, and complaints were used to make improvements.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There were systems to monitor quality, and people, relatives and outside professionals spoke positively about the service. Some staff were unclear about who was in charge and said communication was not always effective while a new manager was waiting to become registered.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Torpoint Nursing Centre was rated Good in every area; inspectors found kind, safe care but said the dining experience for people living with dementia needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, reviewed seven care plans and medicine records, and checked the home's quality and safety records.
The home was rated Good overall and in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, staffing was suitable and care was personalised.
People and relatives described kind and compassionate care. The home supported people's health, communication, activities and end-of-life care, and worked well with outside health professionals.
There were some improvements still needed. The dining experience did not always support independence or dignity for people living with dementia. The provider had recognised this and sent CQC an action plan.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found suitable staffing levels that could change when people's needs changed. Medicines were securely stored, records were accurate and nursing staff had their competence checked.
“People were supported by suitable numbers of staff.” from the report
Kind and compassionate care
People and relatives described staff as kind. Inspectors saw staff reassure and comfort people when they were worried, and found that privacy and dignity were respected.
“People and their families told us staff were kind, and we observed compassionate interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and care plans recorded their individual needs, history, communication and preferences. People were supported to remain as independent as possible.
“People received personalised care. Staff knew people well and how to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and communication
People could take part in social activities and received extra help when needed. The provider also used technology to support a person's communication and independence.
“People could access a variety of social entertainment, which was either organised by staff or by external entertainers.” from the report
Listening and improvement
People, families and staff were involved in developing the home. A committee including relatives, people and staff reviewed the service and recommended changes.
“The provider had a Care Standards Committee.” from the report
Dining experience
needs fixingPeople living with dementia did not always receive meals in a way that supported independence, dignity and respect. Examples included a long wait for lunch, tables not always being laid and people not being told what meal they had been given.
“The dining experience people received did not respect people's individual needs, promote people's independence and treat people with respect.” from the report
Understanding legal safeguards
needs fixingStaff knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was limited. The provider had already identified this and said additional training was being introduced.
“Staffs knowledge was limited regarding the MCA and DoLS.” from the report
Clarity about leadership
minorSome staff were not always clear about who was in charge or felt communication was effective. The provider said responsibilities would become clearer when the new manager became registered and officially took up the role.
“Staff told us they did not always know who was 'in charge' of the service and did not always feel communication was effective.” from the report
Recording behaviour
minorSome staff felt records of behaviour that challenged were not detailed enough to show which support approach worked best. Inspectors did not identify that immediate action was required, but the provider said it would review the records.
“Staff told us that when people displayed behaviour that challenged, they did not feel the recording of people's behaviour was adequate” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the action plan about dining, especially for people living with dementia?
- 02How do you now make sure people are told what meal they are having and can eat as independently as possible?
- 03What additional training have staff completed on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 04Who is currently in charge, and how are responsibilities and communication explained to staff?
- 05How are records of behaviour that challenges reviewed so staff know which support approaches work best?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas; the front page gives 19 and 20 October 2018 as the visit dates, although one section refers to November. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 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.
Every inspection of Torpoint Nursing Centre
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 February 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.