CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Tupwood Gate
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and managed, medicines were administered safely, staffing levels were sufficient and recruitment checks had been completed. The home was clean and had arrangements for emergencies and fire safety.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received assessments and support for their health and dietary needs. Staff had suitable training, although some staff had not recently received supervision when inspectors visited, and information about meal choices was not always clear.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed treating people warmly and respectfully. People were involved in choices, supported to remain independent and cared for in a way that protected their privacy and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's needs, backgrounds and preferences. Activities were available and improvements were under way, but some people cared for in their rooms wanted more meaningful activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People and relatives could give feedback through meetings and surveys, and the home acted on issues raised. Audits were carried out, staff felt supported and communication systems were in place.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Tupwood Gate was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with clearer meal choices and more activities still needed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 12 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a relative and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were handled properly, staffing levels met people's needs and the home was clean.
People described staff as caring and respectful. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences, and end of life care was described as sensitive. The home had systems for listening to people, handling complaints and checking the quality of care.
There were some areas to improve. Some people were not always told clearly about meal choices. People who stayed in their rooms said they wanted more meaningful activities. The provider had started work on both issues.
Safe care and medicines
Inspectors found that risks were assessed, incidents were reviewed and medicines were administered by trained nurses. Staffing levels were considered sufficient to meet people's needs safely.
“People's care was delivered safely with personal risks assessed and managed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw friendly interactions, support that encouraged independence and care that protected privacy and dignity.
“People were involved in their care.” from the report
Sensitive end of life care
The home gathered people's wishes and preferences and provided sensitive end of life care. The report records compliments from relatives about this support.
“People received sensitive and appropriate end of life care.” from the report
Listening and improvement
People could raise issues in meetings and through surveys. The home used audits and action plans to identify and address improvements.
“Regular checks and audits were carried out to assure the quality of the care that people received.” from the report
Meal choices were not always clear
needs fixingThree people said they did not always know they could choose a different meal, even though alternatives were available. Inspectors recommended improving the information given at mealtimes.
“We recommend the provider reviews the information provided to people to ensure that they are aware of their options at mealtimes.” from the report
More activities for people in their rooms
needs fixingSome people who could not attend group activities said they wanted more meaningful activities. Work had started to improve this, and inspectors planned to check its impact at the next inspection.
“Two people told us that they felt there was not always enough activities for them as they were cared for in their rooms and could not attend group activities.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every person knows what meal choices and alternatives are available?
- 02What activities are now offered to people who spend most of their time in their rooms?
- 03How do you check that improvements to activities have made a difference?
- 04How often will the person I care about have their care plan reviewed?
- 05How do people and relatives raise concerns, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the ratings for all five areas were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 June 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 Tupwood Gate
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.