CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Foxby Hill Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, staffing, recruitment, medicines, infection control and accidents were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission and staff received training, supervision and performance checks. People were supported with food, fluids, health care and legal consent requirements.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff offered choices and encouraged independence, and relatives were involved in care decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and updated when needs changed. The home supported communication, activities, relationships, visitors, complaints and end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found the home was well managed, with quality checks, staff support and involvement from people and relatives. The home worked with other services and sent required notifications on time.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 and 13 June 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, received suitable support with health and food, and were treated with kindness and respect.
Care was planned around people's needs and choices. People could take part in activities, see visitors and raise concerns. The home also worked with health and social care professionals and had systems to monitor and improve its care.
Safe care
Inspectors found suitable systems for managing risks, safeguarding, medicines, staffing, infection control and accidents.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm.” from the report
Health and daily support
Staff assessed people's food, drink and health needs, and worked with specialist and healthcare professionals when needed.
“People's outcomes were consistently good, and people's feedback confirmed this.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring and helpful. Inspectors observed respectful support and people being encouraged to remain independent.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. The home offered activities, supported visitors and helped people maintain relationships.
“The provider encouraged good relationships and provided a variety of activities and pastimes to avoid people feeling isolated.” from the report
Good management
The manager and staff understood their roles. Quality checks were used to identify shortfalls and make improvements.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's risks if their mobility or support needs change?
- 02How will you support my relative's food, drink, swallowing or dietary needs?
- 03What activities and communication support would be available for my relative, including if they have dementia or a sensory impairment?
- 04How would you involve me and my relative in care decisions and respond to any concerns or complaints?
- 05How would you plan and provide end of life care that reflects my relative's preferred place of care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 July 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but medicines were not always managed safely.
The inspection was unannounced on 02 November 2016. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and monitoring records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, personalised care, supportive leadership, suitable activities and good support with food, drinks and healthcare.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Some medicine records were incomplete, one prescribed medicine had not been given and there was no explanation recorded. Inspectors found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, and senior staff had already identified most of the problems through their own audits.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw a warm atmosphere and staff supporting people patiently and kindly. People were treated as individuals and supported to make choices.
“There was a warm, relaxed atmosphere in the home and throughout our inspection visit we saw that staff supported people in kind and friendly ways.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's care and support needs. Staffing levels were higher in the dementia living area to reflect people's needs.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's care and support needs.” from the report
Improved staff support
The home had improved its training records and supervision since the previous inspection. New staff received induction and shadowing before working fully in the team.
“The registered manager had taken action in response to our findings to ensure the training record was accurate and up-to-date.” from the report
Supportive leadership
The manager was visible in the home and staff described good teamwork. Senior staff used handovers, meetings and audits to coordinate care.
“Staff worked together in a friendly and mutually supportive way.” from the report
Medicine safety and records
seriousSome medicines were out of date or not listed correctly. Staff did not always sign records, one dose was not given without an explanation, and some fridge checks were not recorded.
“Some people's medicines were not managed safely in line with good practice and national guidance” from the report
Weekend front door cover
minorSome relatives said they sometimes waited a long time for the front door to be answered at weekends, when care staff were expected to answer it.
“Some people's relatives said that they sometimes had to wait a long time for the front door to be answered when they visited at weekends.” from the report
Shared bedrooms
minorThe home had two double-occupancy rooms. The manager acknowledged that continuing to use shared bedrooms was not ideal and said this was being discussed with the owner.
“Something I keep discussing with the owner. It's not ideal.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure every medicine is given, recorded and explained if it is missed?
- 02How do you check and record the medicines fridge temperature every day?
- 03What arrangements are now in place to answer the front door promptly at weekends?
- 04Would my relative have a single bedroom, and how are shared bedrooms managed if one is offered?
- 05How will my relative and our family be included in regular care plan reviews?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions; the day care service in the same building was not regulated by CQC. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 2016 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 Foxby Hill Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 April 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.