CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dearne Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were generally assessed and managed, medicines were given as prescribed, and staffing and infection control arrangements were found to be safe. One moving-and-handling care plan lacked enough detail, but the management team acted on this.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed, staff were trained, and people were supported with food, drinks and healthcare. Staff understood mental capacity and best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, respectful and considerate. People said staff knew their likes and dislikes and supported their independence and choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff knew people’s needs and preferences, and care plans covered communication and end-of-life wishes. However, inspectors saw little social engagement and recommended a review of activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had identified improvements and was working to an action plan, with support from regional managers and the quality team. There was no registered manager in post during the inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Dearne Hall rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but limited meaningful activities and some records needed improvement.
This was the first inspection since the home registered with the CQC. It was unannounced and took place on 10 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff knew them well, and care generally followed their needs, choices and preferences. Inspectors also found that medicines, infection control, staffing and safeguarding were managed safely.
The main weakness was social engagement. Inspectors saw little evidence of people taking part in activities, and some people said they were bored. They recommended reviewing activities so they had more individual meaning and purpose. There had also been management changes, with two deputy managers supported by regional managers and a quality team.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their choices and independence.
“We observed staff interacting with people and found they were respectful and considerate.” from the report
Safe medicines support
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff had training and regular checks on their ability to handle medicines safely.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained in the safe handling of medicines and had their competencies checked regularly.” from the report
Good food and choice
People were offered food and drinks and said they enjoyed the meals. They were told what was available and given a choice.
“The meals are nice and they [staff] tell you what's on the menu and you always get a choice.” from the report
Not enough meaningful activities
needs fixingInspectors saw little social engagement. Some people said there was not much to do and that they could feel bored, so the provider was asked to review activities.
“During our inspection we saw little social engagement with people.” from the report
Some care records lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans did not always give enough detail, including one plan about safely moving someone with a hoist. The management team took action when this was raised.
“Care plans did not always contain a lot of detail, however, staff could explain how they assisted people in line with their needs.” from the report
Recording issues
minorMedicine amounts were not always recorded correctly when medicines were received. Inspectors found that the amounts given and remaining did match, and the concern was addressed.
“Medicine amounts were not always recorded correctly when booking them in.” from the report
- 01What activities are now available, and how do you match them to each resident’s interests and abilities?
- 02Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and when will there be a registered manager in post?
- 03How do you check that care plans contain enough detail for moving and handling, nutrition and other higher-risk needs?
- 04What checks are now in place to make sure medicines received and used are recorded correctly?
- 05How do you make sure residents who prefer individual time receive regular social contact as well as group activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection since the home registered with the CQC. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 November 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 Dearne Hall
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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
At least 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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 £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.