CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Winchester Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home managed infection risks, including cleaning, protective equipment, testing, visiting, admissions and social distancing.
- 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, March 2021
Winchester Road was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection-control arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection about infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic. Inspectors visited on 22 March 2021 and completed a follow-up review by video on 24 March.
Inspectors found the home was clean, had enough protective equipment, and followed guidance on testing, visiting, admissions, shielding and social distancing. Staff were observed using protective equipment safely.
The home had easy-read information about the pandemic and introduced extra activities to support people's wellbeing during lockdown. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Clear information
People were given easy-read information to help them understand the pandemic.
“People were supported to understand information about the pandemic using easy read information which was prominently displayed in the service.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean, and cleaning activities were recorded and overseen.
“We observed the home was clean and staff completed regular cleaning activities which were recorded.” from the report
Safe visits
The home had visiting arrangements in line with national guidance and offered phone or online contact when face-to-face visits were not possible.
“Where face to face visits were not possible, people were encouraged to use alternative communication such as telephone calls and online video calls” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
There was enough protective equipment, staff had relevant training, and people and staff had access to regular testing.
“The provider ensured there was ample supply of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), and we observed staff using this in line with national guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently help people understand infection risks and changes to daily routines?
- 02How are visits arranged now, including alternatives when face-to-face visits are not possible?
- 03How often are people and staff tested, and what infection-control training do staff receive?
- 04How are cleaning tasks recorded and checked by the manager?
- 05How do you support people's activities and wellbeing when normal routines are disrupted?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 2021 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with two staff vacancies being covered by existing staff and the manager.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 02 August 2017. One inspector spoke with one person, relatives, a representative, staff and managers. They also observed care and reviewed care plans, staff records and management records.
The inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and that risks and medicines were managed safely. Staff had suitable checks, training and support. People received appropriate food, drinks and healthcare, and were supported to make choices and stay as independent as possible.
People had positive relationships with staff. Their care was tailored to their needs, interests and communication. The home offered individual activities, encouraged family contact and acted on feedback. All five areas were rated Good, and the home remained Good after also being rated Good at the previous inspection.
Safe medicines management
The inspectors found that medicines were given by trained staff, stored safely and checked. The records they reviewed were complete.
“Medicines records we reviewed were complete. No-one received their medicines covertly, but staff knew how people preferred to take them” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff received an induction, required training, supervision and appraisals. Training included subjects linked to people's individual needs.
“Staff had completed training in autism and epilepsy to provide them with the skills to support people effectively with their healthcare needs.” from the report
Respectful relationships
People appeared relaxed with staff, were offered choices and had their privacy and dignity respected.
“We observed people were relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. They approached staff freely and spoke with them.” from the report
Personalised activities
Each person had an activity timetable based on their needs and interests. People were supported with activities, holidays and independence.
“Each person had their own timetable tailored to their needs and interests.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives were involved in care reviews, and staff helped people maintain contact with their families.
“Staff encouraged people to maintain contact with their families. Staff transported people to their relative's home to enable them to spend time there.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorThere were two staff vacancies. Existing staff and the registered manager covered the shifts, and inspectors still found staffing sufficient, but families should check how this is managed now.
“There were currently two staff vacancies. The registered manager believed it was important for people to experience continuity of care so agency staff were not used” from the report
- 01How are the two staff vacancies described in the report covered now?
- 02How do you make sure each person's activity timetable still reflects their current interests and needs?
- 03How are relatives involved in care reviews and decisions about care?
- 04How do staff recognise and respond to each person's communication needs and behaviours that may challenge?
- 05What recent feedback or complaints have led to changes in the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions; the previous comprehensive inspection on 23 June 2015 was also rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 August 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 Winchester Road
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 July 2014.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.