CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at George Hythe House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2022
George Hythe House is rated Requires Improvement; significant progress means it is no longer in special measures, but ongoing safety, consent and management breaches remain.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 19 April 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and management documents.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. There were enough staff during the visit, care plans were clearer, the building had been refurbished and complaints were handled more promptly. People also received good end of life support.
However, some important problems remained. One person was given the wrong texture of food, some moving and handling was unsafe, face masks were not always worn correctly, and recruitment checks were incomplete. Mental capacity assessments and management oversight also needed improvement.
The overall rating and all five question ratings are Requires Improvement. The home is no longer in special measures, but the provider must send an action plan and CQC will continue to monitor progress.
Improved care guidance
Care plans and risk assessments were clearer and gave staff better guidance about people's needs.
“Care plans and risk assessments at the service had been improved, to provide clearer guidance to staff on how to support people effectively.” from the report
Staffing levels
Inspectors saw enough staff during the visit, and staffing improvements meant care was less rushed than at the previous inspection.
“We observed there were enough staff during our inspection visit.” from the report
End of life care
The home had holistic end of life care plans and responded promptly when one person's health deteriorated.
“People at the service received good end of life care.” from the report
Complaints and communication
Complaints were dealt with more promptly. Relatives were usually updated weekly and could give feedback about care.
“Where complaints had been received, these were now responded to appropriately and promptly.” from the report
Refurbished spaces
Refurbishment created more communal areas, including quieter spaces that staff felt supported people's mental health.
“The home layout had been refurbished to ensure that there were multiple areas for people to access.” from the report
Risk of choking
seriousOne person was given food with the wrong consistency. Inspectors said this increased the risk of choking.
“We saw staff did not give one person the correct texture diet.” from the report
Unsafe recruitment checks
seriousRecruitment files did not show suitable references had been obtained or gaps in employment history had been explored.
“Safe recruitment processes had not been followed again, as suitable references were not gathered and gaps in employment history had not been explored.” from the report
Mental capacity and consent
seriousSome mental capacity assessments did not contain enough detail. Assessments were also missing before motion sensors were used, and one person's medicine instructions were not followed.
“Not enough improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was still in breach of regulation 11” from the report
Mixed staff interactions
needs fixingInspectors saw both caring and less caring interactions. One response to a person with mental health difficulties was described as overly harsh.
“This was an overly harsh response to a person with mental health difficulties.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's action plan had not solved several ongoing problems. This led to continuing concerns about governance.
“We remain concerned that the current action plan for the service was not effective at creating improvement in these areas.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure each person receives the correct texture of food and is protected from choking?
- 02How are recruitment checks now completed, including references and gaps in employment history?
- 03Have mental capacity assessments been completed for people using motion sensors and for decisions about medicines?
- 04How do managers check that staff communicate respectfully and offer people choices during everyday care?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan and when will the remaining breaches be resolved?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; the report also compares the findings with the previous inspection, which was rated Inadequate. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 May 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.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found people at risk because of unsafe care, poor staffing and weak leadership.
Inspectors visited without notice on 9, 11 and 15 November 2021. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicine records, staff files, training and management records.
They found widespread problems. Care plans did not give staff enough guidance. Staffing levels and staff deployment were not enough to keep people safe. Risks linked to choking, pressure damage, diabetes, epilepsy and behaviour were not always managed safely. Infection control procedures were not always followed.
Staff were kind when they had time, and people received enough food and fluid. However, care was often rushed and focused on completing tasks. Complaints did not always lead to improvements. The overall rating fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate, and the home was placed in special measures.
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw that staff were kind and polite when they had time to talk with people.
“When staff did talk to people, we saw their interactions were kind and polite.” from the report
Food and fluids
Inspectors found that people received enough food and drink to avoid the risks of malnutrition and dehydration.
“People received enough food and fluid to ensure they were not at risk of malnutrition or dehydration.” from the report
Visits and some infection measures
The home supported visits and required visitors to take COVID-19 tests before entering. Inspectors were also assured about admissions and testing.
“Visitors had covid tests before entering the service.” from the report
Refurbishment
The home had undergone substantial refurbishment since the previous inspection, although further improvements were planned.
“Since the last inspection, there has been substantial refurbishment to improve the environment at George Hythe House.” from the report
People were at risk of choking
seriousA person who needed a special diet was given the wrong food and drink consistency. Inspectors said staff did not respond safely and made a safeguarding referral.
“One person required a specialised diet to reduce the risk of choking.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousStaff were not deployed well enough across the home. This meant people were not always observed or supported quickly, including when there was a risk of injury or choking.
“We found that there were not enough staff to keep people safe from harm.” from the report
Poor infection control
seriousMasks, hand hygiene, social distancing and cleaning mop arrangements were not always used safely. Inspectors said this increased the risk of COVID-19 or bacteria spreading.
“The care staff did not wear face masks correctly, as the government guidance required.” from the report
Staff lacked key skills
seriousSome staff had not received training needed for people's individual needs, including epilepsy and modified diets. The provider said training had been arranged after the inspection.
“Staff did not have the competence and skills to deliver safe care.” from the report
Care was not personalised
needs fixingStaff were focused on completing tasks rather than meeting people's preferences. Some life-history information was recorded, but it did not clearly explain how staff should use it.
“Staff were focused on completing tasks, rather than providing person centred care.” from the report
Weak improvement systems
seriousThe provider had not acted effectively on concerns from the previous inspection. Audits and handovers did not lead to reliable improvements.
“The provider has failed to oversee the required improvements.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now deployed on each wing, and how do you check that this is enough for people's current needs?
- 02What checks now make sure people receive the correct food and drink texture, including for choking risks?
- 03What training have staff completed for epilepsy, modified diets and behaviour that challenges them?
- 04How are care plans checked to make sure they are accurate, personalised and reflect advice from health professionals?
- 05What action has been taken about complaints concerning lost belongings, hearing aids, dentures and glasses?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control, following ongoing concerns after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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 George Hythe House
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- May 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2022Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- August 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 July 2020.
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 Leicester
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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.