CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Erskine Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and regularly reviewed, with clear guidance for staff. Medicines were administered safely overall, although inspectors found some minor errors that had not caused harm and were being addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed and used to plan their care. Staff had relevant training, there were enough staff on duty during the inspection, and people were supported with nutrition and access to health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring, patient and respectful. People were involved in care reviews and encouraged to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and included people's histories, preferences and communication needs. People could choose activities, quiet time and how to keep in touch with relatives, and complaints were recorded and reviewed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear leadership, open communication and quality checks that were used to improve the service. People, relatives, staff and professionals gave positive feedback about how the home was managed.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Erskine Hall Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with minor medicines errors already being addressed.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection. Inspectors visited on 14 February 2023 and inspection activity ended on 6 March 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, received suitable care and support, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
There had been minor medicines errors, but nobody was harmed. The management team had identified these, retrained staff, checked staff competence and reviewed the medicines systems. Inspectors also found improvements since the previous inspection, so the earlier breach of Regulation 12 no longer applied.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were caring, patient and respectful. Staff encouraged people to do what they could for themselves.
“People told us the staff treated them well, were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, likes, dislikes, health needs and communication preferences. Relatives could be involved in reviews and, with permission, access care records remotely.
“Care records gave detailed guidance for staff about how to support people and a personal life history to get to know them better.” from the report
Good health support
Staff worked with health and social care professionals and supported people to access appointments. Staff understood people's conditions and what to do if their health changed.
“The staff team also liaised regularly with relevant health and social care professionals to ensure the care being delivered was safe and in-line with current best practice guidelines.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose from activities, social events and quieter spaces. Those who did not join group activities could receive individual time and support.
“For people who did not wish to join in with group events, and for people who were cared for in bed, staff spent time with them on an individual basis” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Management used audits, observations, training and feedback to monitor care and make changes.
“At this inspection the registered manager implemented and monitored a variety of checks and systems such as audits, observation and training to monitor and develop the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Minor medicines errors
needs fixingInspectors found some minor medicines errors. Nobody was harmed, and the management team had taken action, but families should ask how these changes are being checked over time.
“While we did find there had been some minor errors, these had not resulted in anyone coming to harm.” from the report
- 01What medicines errors were found, and how will you show that the retraining and new checks have prevented them happening again?
- 02How do you check the skills and knowledge of agency staff when they are used?
- 03How will my relative's care preferences, communication needs and health risks be recorded and reviewed?
- 04How can I be involved in care reviews and access my relative's care records remotely?
- 05How would you support my relative to take part in activities, spend quiet time or keep in touch with family?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection that assessed all five CQC key questions and included infection prevention and control checks under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 2023 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, May 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and activities, but gaps in risk assessments, medicines and care records.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 2 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicine records and other records about the home.
People generally felt safe, supported and cared for. Staff knew people well, treated them kindly and offered activities. However, inspectors found missing or unclear risk assessments, medicines records that were not always accurate, and care plans that did not always contain enough detail.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good. The report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection, but important work was still needed.
Kind and attentive care
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and respectfully. People and relatives generally described staff as kind and caring.
“Staff were attentive to people. We saw they placed a reassuring hand on a person's shoulder and responded warmly to a person who put their arm around them.” from the report
Activities and choice
People said they had enough to do and enjoyed the activities. They were offered choices about food, drinks and how to spend their time.
“There are nice activities; entertainers, exercises and so on.” from the report
Improved safeguarding
Problems identified at the previous inspection about reporting and responding to safeguarding concerns had been addressed. Staff knew how to report concerns.
“At this inspection we found that these concerns had been addressed.” from the report
Visible management
The registered manager was visible and available in the home. Staff said the approach had improved teamwork and made them feel valued.
“People, relatives and staff told us, and we also saw, that the registered manager was visible in the home and made themselves available if anyone needed to speak with them.” from the report
Missing risk assessments
seriousMany people did not have clear individual risk assessments. Inspectors found that staff did not always know about risks such as choking, mobility problems and oxygen safety.
“People did not always have individual risk assessments. Staff were not always aware of individual risks and as a result may not have always been working safely.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousMedicines were not always administered, stored or recorded safely. Checks and audits had not identified all the problems found during the inspection.
“People's medicines were not consistently administered, stored and recorded safely.” from the report
Capacity decisions not recorded
needs fixingThe home did not always record whether people could understand important decisions about their care. Best-interest decisions were missing in some cases involving food, drink and mobility aids.
“As a result, best interest decisions were not recorded.” from the report
Incomplete care plans
needs fixingSome care plans were incomplete, out of date or not detailed enough to guide staff who did not know a person well.
“People's support plans were not detailed and person centred in all cases so that it covered all elements of a person's needs, wishes, and lives.” from the report
Audits did not always fix problems
needs fixingThe home had audits and action plans, but some actions recorded as complete had not fully resolved the problems.
“However, some actions which had been signed as completed were not robustly completed.” from the report
- 01How have you completed and reviewed individual risk assessments for choking, mobility and oxygen therapy?
- 02What checks now make sure medicines are administered, stored and recorded accurately?
- 03How do you record capacity assessments and best-interest decisions for people who may be at risk from their choices?
- 04How do you ensure care plans are complete and up to date, especially when agency staff support people?
- 05What changes have you made after the Regulation 12 breach, and what evidence shows that those changes are working?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the home and care provided, with ratings given for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 May 2019 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 Erskine Hall Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.