CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Weymouth - Weymouth Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors only examined infection prevention and control, not the whole Safe question. They were assured about visitor screening, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Previous overall rating Good; a targeted inspection found effective infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 10 December 2020. They checked infection prevention and control because of a COVID-19 outbreak. One inspector carried out the visit.
They found clear visitor screening, temperature checks, planned cleaning and safe use of personal protective equipment. People who tested positive were supported to isolate, with designated staff to reduce the risk of spreading infection.
The inspection was targeted, so it did not reassess the whole service. Safe was marked as inspected but not rated. The previous overall rating was Good, published in September 2018, and the report says this remained unchanged.
Visitor screening
The home had a clear process for screening visitors, including health questions and temperature checks. Visits had been arranged carefully before they were suspended because of the outbreak.
“The home had a clear visiting protocol for all visitors. This included health screening questions and recorded temperature checks.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
The home was visibly clean. Cleaning schedules covered routine cleaning and extra cleaning of frequently touched areas, with management checks.
“The home was visibly clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules guided staff on the cleaning regime required for each area of the home.” from the report
Managing infection
People who tested positive were supported to isolate in their rooms. Staff supporting them worked exclusively with those people to help reduce cross-infection.
“Designated staff provided support exclusively to these people to help avoid the risk of cross infection.” from the report
Keeping people connected
People were supported with individual activities and electronic devices so they could stay in contact with family, friends and health professionals.
“People were supported to maintain their mental and physical wellbeing through tailored activities.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and how will visits be managed if there is another outbreak?
- 02How are visitors, residents and staff currently screened and tested for infection?
- 03How are people who test positive isolated and supported, and which staff care for them?
- 04What infection control improvements were identified with the local Clinical Commissioning Group, and have all of them been completed?
- 05When was the last comprehensive inspection, and what were the ratings for the parts not reviewed in this targeted visit?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control within Safe; it did not assess the whole Safe question or the other key questions, whose previous overall rating was Good from 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 2020 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, September 2018
Weymouth - Weymouth Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, with some small improvements still being followed up.
Inspectors visited on 10 and 11 September 2018. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also checked care plans, medicines records, staffing, complaints, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were seen responding to call bells promptly, supporting people's dignity and offering choices about care, food, activities and daily routines.
Inspectors found good support with eating, drinking, skin care, medicines and access to health professionals. The home had a varied activities programme and good links with families. Some issues identified by earlier local monitoring visits were being addressed, including more detailed skin care plans and further improvements to activities.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise possible abuse and how to report concerns.
“People were supported by staff who understood how to safeguard them from harm or abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were consistently kind, caring and patient. Inspectors saw privacy, dignity, consent and independence being respected.
“People were supported by staff who were consistently kind, caring and patient in their approach.” from the report
Health and nutrition
The home supported people with food, fluids, specialist diets and access to health professionals. Staff acted on professional advice.
“People were supported to eat and drink sufficiently. People's dietary needs and preferences were well known and catered for.” from the report
Activities and family contact
There was a varied programme with group and one-to-one activities. People were supported to keep in touch with relatives and friends.
“Activities were well publicised and delivered in communal areas and via 1:1 sessions in people's bedrooms.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings, surveys and action plans to identify issues and make changes.
“Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place and up to date.” from the report
Busy periods and staffing
minorThe overall staffing level was judged sufficient, but some staff and relatives said the home could feel pressured or hectic. The manager was advertising for further staff.
“Staff did not appear rushed but one staff member said sometimes they can be pressured.” from the report
DoLS records
needs fixingThe home had followed up delayed DoLS authorisations, but agreed to add this follow-up information to its records.
“The registered manager had evidence to show that they had followed up delays in DoLS being authorised and agreed that this information would be added to their DoLS record.” from the report
Activities still developing
minorOne-to-one activities were being provided, but the home planned to improve their quality and variety and was recruiting more activity support.
“Some of these were more developed than others.” from the report
- 01How many nurses, care staff and senior staff are on duty during the day and at night, and have the advertised posts been filled?
- 02How do you check and record medicines fridge temperatures, and what happens if a temperature is outside the recommended range?
- 03How do you track DoLS applications, follow up delays and record any conditions attached to an authorisation?
- 04How are one-to-one activities planned for people who spend much of their time in their rooms?
- 05How will you continue the improvements identified after the local authority and clinical commissioning group monitoring visits?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; the report says the service remained Good since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 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 Weymouth - Weymouth Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Weymouth - Weymouth Care Home →
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Weymouth - Weymouth Care Home →
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
15 live-in carers within about an hour of Dorset
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 £1,040 to £1,340 a week. 11 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Even when things get a bit chaotic (as they sometimes do!), you’ve handled it with patience and a sense of humour — which is gold.”
“Nina was patient, focussed on my aunt's physical well-being, and unfazed by what at the time was a new and uncertain situation”
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.