CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Foxholes Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with a few areas needing closer attention.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 3 September 2019. Three inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff files and management records.
The home provided personal and nursing care for 65 people, with space for up to 110. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings and staff who were trained and supported. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care.
Care was described as kind, respectful and tailored to people's needs. People were involved in decisions, supported to keep in touch with others and offered activities. The home also had detailed plans for end of life care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous Good rating published in March 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance, checking people's comfort and supporting them with dignity. People and relatives spoke positively about staff.
“People told us that staff were kind and respectful.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff adapted communication for people with hearing or visual impairment. This included headphones, clear care plans and an album showing staff names and photographs.
“Staff took time to communicate with people who had impaired communication.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
The home offered activities, outings and ways for people who were unwell or had communication difficulties to join in.
“There were systems in place to help prevent people becoming isolated.” from the report
Detailed end of life planning
People had plans setting out their wishes, including choices about resuscitation and how they wanted to be supported at the end of life.
“People had end of life care plans in place which helped to ensure they died with dignity.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff described the management team as approachable and supportive. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to identify and act on issues.
“There was an open culture in the home and an expectation that people were treated as family.” from the report
Risk assessment was not completed promptly
needs fixingOne person was potentially at risk of choking, but the assessment was completed only after inspectors prompted the management team.
“one person was potentially at risk of choking and we needed to prompt the management team to complete an assessment.” from the report
Some waits for call bells
needs fixingAlthough most feedback said staffing was sufficient and inspectors saw timely care, two people said they sometimes waited for staff to answer their call bell.
“two people told us at times they had to wait for staff to answer the call bell.” from the report
Food variety
minorPeople generally enjoyed the food and choices were available, but some people said the menu lacked variety and needed improvement.
“Some views however were that it lacked variety and needed improving.” from the report
Oxygen safety knowledge
needs fixingOne domestic staff member was not aware of the risks of using Vaseline around oxygen. The management team provided the updated information during the inspection.
“one domestic staff member was not aware of the risks of using Vaseline around oxygen.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells answered now, and how do you check for delays?
- 02How are choking risks assessed and reviewed for each person?
- 03What training and checks are in place for staff who work around oxygen?
- 04How do you respond when people say the food lacks variety?
- 05What further changes have been made to support people living with dementia?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 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, March 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, and removed a previous admission restriction.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 January 2017. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, a health professional and the manager. They also observed care and checked care records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable care plans, kind staff and activities that reflected people's interests.
The provider had made improvements since earlier inspections. Systems for checking quality and responding to concerns were stronger. The previous restriction stopping new admissions was removed.
There were still areas being developed. Food quality was described as variable, some staff supervisions had not happened as often as the provider's policy required, and planned independent checks of the service were not yet in place.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Senior staff moved staff between units when extra help was needed.
“There was sufficient numbers of staff to meet people`s needs in a timely way.” from the report
Safe medicines
Trained staff administered medicines safely. Records and stock checks were complete, with no errors or omissions found.
“When we checked the stocks remaining, we found no errors or omissions.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's needs and preferences. They respected privacy and dignity and involved people and relatives in care planning.
“People were treated with kindness and respect by staff.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could take part in activities linked to their interests, including quizzes, music, church events and celebrations.
“People were supported to follow their own pursuits and interests or to participate in wider events within the home.” from the report
Improved oversight
The provider had strengthened its systems for finding shortfalls and taking action. This was an improvement on the earlier inspection.
“At this inspection we found that the governance systems were effective in identifying any shortfalls and actions were in place to improve the quality of the care provided.” from the report
Food quality was uneven
needs fixingPeople and relatives gave mixed views about the food. A new chef had been appointed shortly before the inspection, so families should ask whether quality has improved.
“People told us that the standard of food provided at the home varied.” from the report
Staff supervision was not always on schedule
needs fixingStaff had training and support, but not all supervision meetings took place every quarter as the provider's policy said they should.
“These were not all provided in line with the provider's policy of quarterly meetings, but this had recently improved” from the report
Some oversight plans were unfinished
needs fixingThe manager was also the provider, so could not independently audit the service. An external review was planned but had not started at the inspection.
“This system at the time of inspection was not in place; however plans were in place to shortly commence.” from the report
Staffing analysis needed further development
minorThe home used a dependency tool but relied mainly on the manager's own observations while occupancy was low. Inspectors said the tool needed to be used properly as occupancy increased.
“They were aware that the dependency tool had to be used appropriately in the future as they continued to increase occupancy levels.” from the report
Meal choices were not shown visually
minorPeople were offered a verbal choice of meals, but the report said visual choices would be better for people living with dementia. This was planned for further development.
“Staff had not given people visual choice; however the registered manager told us this will be further developed” from the report
- 01How has the quality and presentation of food changed since the new chef was appointed?
- 02Are staff now receiving supervision meetings at least every three months?
- 03Has the planned independent review of the home been completed, and what did it find?
- 04How are staffing levels calculated as the number of people living in the home increases?
- 05Are meal choices now shown visually for people living with dementia?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, with observations, discussions with people and others, and checks of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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 Foxholes Care Home
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 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.