CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Halmer Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with medicines, the environment, lawful restrictions and care planning.
This was the home’s first inspection. It was unannounced and followed concerns about medicines, infection control, safety and staffing. Inspectors visited on 04 July 2023 and 07 July 2023. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, recruitment files and training records.
Inspectors found problems in all five areas they rate. Risks were not always identified or reduced. Medicines were sometimes unavailable or poorly recorded, infection risks were found in a kitchenette, and some people were restricted without the required legal authorisation. Care plans, staff training, activities and feedback systems were also incomplete or inconsistent.
The home took some action during and after the inspection, including improving medicine checks, adding risk assessments and putting some training in place. However, inspectors said the effectiveness of these changes would be checked at a future inspection. The home must send an action plan and will be monitored by the CQC.
Safeguarding reporting
Allegations of abuse were reported to the local safeguarding authority when required. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“Incidents of alleged abuse had been reported to the local safeguarding authority where required.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home carried out relevant recruitment checks, including checks about criminal convictions and cautions.
“Staff were recruited safely. Relevant recruitment checks were in place to support safe recruitment.” from the report
Healthcare support
Inspectors found evidence that people were supported to access healthcare when needed and that the home worked with health professionals.
“People were supported to access healthcare when it was needed.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
Staff understood how to protect people’s privacy and dignity. Relatives also felt these were protected.
“Staff understood how to protect people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Positive new manager
People, staff and relatives described the new manager as approachable and said the atmosphere had improved.
“People, staff and relatives told us the new manager was approachable and they felt able to raise any concerns to them if required.” from the report
Medicines and infection risks
seriousPeople did not always receive medicines as prescribed because some were out of stock. Records for as-required medicines, creams and liquid medicines were incomplete, and food storage and cleaning problems created infection risks.
“People did not always receive their medicines as prescribed due to medicines being out of stock.” from the report
Unsafe environmental risks
seriousA hot water urn, hot food trolley and hazardous items were accessible in a kitchenette. Some people also did not have personal evacuation plans for use in a fire.
“The service had a kitchenette area which was accessible to people.” from the report
Unlawful restrictions
seriousSome people were deprived of their liberty without the required legal authorisations. One person was also stopped from managing their own medicines despite having capacity to decide this.
“People were deprived of the liberty without relevant authorisations in place.” from the report
Incomplete care plans
needs fixingSome permanent residents still had respite care plans, which did not contain enough detail about their needs, history, likes or dislikes. Some risk information, including repositioning instructions, was also missing.
“Some people who were permanent residents did not have full care plans.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingThere was no activities coordinator and meaningful activities were limited. Staff said activities could only be offered when staffing allowed.
“There is 100% a lack of activities for people.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousAudits had identified some problems, but action was not always taken. Feedback from people and relatives was also not consistently collected or recorded.
“Quality assurance systems were not always effective in identifying and acting upon concerns.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure medicines are always in stock, correctly recorded and given as prescribed?
- 02Have all people who need them now got current risk assessments and personal emergency evacuation plans?
- 03Do all residents who are restricted have the correct legal authorisation, and how are their choices and independence supported?
- 04Have permanent residents’ care plans been rewritten to include their needs, history, preferences and repositioning arrangements?
- 05Who now organises meaningful activities, and how often can residents take part?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five key questions, with particular attention to medicines, infection control, safety of care and staffing. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 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.
Every inspection of Halmer Court
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- September 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 September 2021.
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.