CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Foxglove Care Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, risk management, medicines, recruitment and infection control were all found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report's summary describes kind and compassionate care, but no current rating was given for this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were described as approachable and knowledgeable. Governance and quality checks were effective, and staff felt able to raise concerns.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Foxglove Care Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful care and effective management during this focused inspection.
Inspectors visited on 7 November 2023 after concerns had been raised about the building. They reviewed information from the provider, local authority and health professionals. They spoke with one person, two relatives and six staff, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The inspection found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were effective. The provider had also taken action to address earlier concerns about parts of the building.
The home was described as kind, respectful and focused on people's choices. Staff understood people's individual needs and supported their interests, community activities and contact with family and friends. Managers were approachable and the provider had effective checks on quality and safety.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only. Both were rated Good. The overall Good rating used the previous ratings for the other areas, which came from the last comprehensive inspection published in 2017.
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make choices, follow their interests and use community services. The report says restrictions were kept to a minimum.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests;” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff understood people's individual needs and protected their privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Staffing and support
There were enough staff to provide safe care and one-to-one support for activities and time in the community.
“There were enough staff to ensure people received safe care and 1-1 support to enable them to take part in activities and community leave how and when they wanted.” from the report
Open management
Managers were visible and approachable. Staff said they could raise concerns, and the provider used checks and meetings to improve the service.
“Staff felt able to raise concerns with managers without fear of what might happen as a result.” from the report
Building risks addressed
The inspection was prompted by concerns about the building, but inspectors found that action had been taken to reduce the risks and make improvements.
“We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What improvements or replacements have been made to the building, and how are you checking that they remain safe?
- 02How will you make sure my relative receives the right level of one-to-one support for activities and community visits?
- 03How do staff learn and record my relative's communication needs, preferences and important dos and don'ts?
- 04How are medicines reviewed, particularly if they could affect behaviour or are used for a person with a learning disability or autism?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise concerns, and how will the home show us what action it has taken?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings and the overall rating used ratings from the last comprehensive inspection published on 6 October 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 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, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some management and record-keeping issues.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 24 and 29 August 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, managers and staff. They reviewed care files, medicines records, staff files, complaints and safety records. They also observed care and looked around the home.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from harm, received their medicines safely and had enough staff support. Staff were trained and knew people's needs, and people were supported with food, health care, activities and family relationships.
There were some areas to improve. The registered manager had been absent for several months, positive behaviour support was not yet used across people's whole lifestyles, and one person's injury records did not initially show clearly whether safeguarding had been considered. The acting manager dealt with this record issue during the inspection.
Kind, knowledgeable staff
Inspectors saw friendly relationships and staff who understood people's needs. People were given time and support at their own pace.
“People were compassionately cared for by kind staff that knew about people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. The report also noted that staff were working with the pharmacist to correct timing errors on a newly obtained system.
“Medicines were obtained in a timely way so that people did not run out of them, stored safely and administered on time.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care plans reflected people's needs and explained how staff should support them. Plans and risk assessments were reviewed monthly or when needs changed.
“Care files and support plans reflected people's needs, were person-centred and contained relevant information on how best to support them.” from the report
Choice and activities
People chose their daily activities, meals, routines and relationships. They were supported to go out, use community facilities and keep in touch with family and friends.
“People determined their own daily activities and staff supported.” from the report
Registered manager absence
needs fixingThe registered manager had been away from their duties for several months. An acting manager and operations manager were running the home, and the provider said the situation would soon be resolved.
“There was a registered manager in post though they had been absent from their duties for several months.” from the report
Positive behaviour support
needs fixingThe home had not fully developed positive behaviour support across people's whole lifestyles. It was being used for specific concerns.
“The service had not yet fully embraced the use of positive behaviour support (PBS) with regard to people's whole lifestyles, although this was used to target already known issues.” from the report
Injury records
needs fixingRecords about one person's injuries did not initially show clearly whether they had been linked to accidents or considered as possible safeguarding concerns. The acting manager addressed this on the second inspection day.
“There was insufficient detail to show that action had been taken promptly to cross reference the injuries with any known accidents.” from the report
Feedback was not reported back
minorThe provider used surveys and action plans, but people and others who gave feedback had not been told about the results or changes. The director said an annual report would be shared.
“Although information was collated and used to produce action plans for improvements to the organisation's service delivery and changes were made, those that contributed were not informed.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and how is management cover arranged while the registered manager is absent?
- 02How are you developing positive behaviour support across each person's whole lifestyle?
- 03How are falls, injuries and possible safeguarding concerns recorded, linked to incidents and followed up?
- 04How will families and people living in the home be told about the results of surveys and quality improvements?
- 05How will you prevent medicines timing errors when prescriptions or dispensing arrangements change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 October 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 Foxglove Care Limited
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 May 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Kingston upon Hull, City of
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 £1,350 a week. 12 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.