CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hambleton Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including visitors, testing, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted support for people's social and emotional wellbeing.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection, although inspectors noted that quality checks and staff communication systems were in place.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced inspection on 3 February 2021. It was a targeted visit during the coronavirus pandemic, looking at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, testing, personal protective equipment, cleaning, social distancing and safe visits. Staff also helped people keep in touch with relatives and maintain friendships.
The home was rated "Inspected but not rated". This means the visit checked infection control under the Safe question, but did not give a new overall rating or ratings for the other questions.
Infection control
The home had supplies of PPE, safe areas for putting it on and removing it, staff training and additional checks on safe use.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safe visiting
Visitors had to follow safety checks before entering, and relatives could meet people in a separate screened visiting area.
“People were supported to receive safe visits from their friends and relatives using a separate screened visiting area.” from the report
Contact and activities
Staff helped people use video calls and supported small groups, friendships and access to outdoor spaces.
“Staff supported people's social and emotional wellbeing.” from the report
Cleaning and monitoring
The home carried out extra cleaning, including cleaning frequently touched surfaces, and recorded this work. The manager also had checks in place to monitor safety.
“Additional cleaning of all areas and frequent touch surfaces was in place and being carried out and recorded by housekeeping staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently checked, tested and supported to use PPE before entering the home?
- 02How are safe visits with relatives arranged now, and is the screened visiting area still available?
- 03How often are frequently touched areas cleaned, and how is this recorded?
- 04How are residents supported to keep in touch with family and maintain social activities?
- 05What are the home's current arrangements for testing and managing a possible infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not assess the other four key questions or give an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 February 2021 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, April 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, but the home needed to improve its management checks and records.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 26 February 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also reviewed care, medicines, staffing and quality records, and observed care.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People generally felt safe, were treated with dignity, received support from trained staff and had activities and care tailored to their interests.
The rating for well-led was Requires Improvement. The provider had made significant progress since the previous inspection, when the overall rating was Requires Improvement. However, improvements to medicines, end of life and other records had not yet become established, and checks did not always identify problems.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with patience, warmth and dignity. Staff supported emotional needs and encouraged people to make their own choices.
“Staff interacted with people respectfully, showing patience and warmth. People responded positively to this.” from the report
Personalised activities
Staff learned about people's life histories and interests. People were offered individual and group activities and were supported to maintain relationships.
“The lifestyle manager spent time discussing people's life histories with them.” from the report
Safe environment
People could move around the home freely and use different areas, including a secure outside space. The home was clean and free of bad smells.
“People were able to move freely around the home and access a secure outside area.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had made significant improvements and the previous breach about safe care and treatment had been met. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“The provider had worked to make significant improvements following the last inspection.” from the report
Management checks and records
needs fixingQuality checks did not always identify problems with medicines and end of life records. Records and audits were not always signed off, and some actions were not clearly documented.
“Some aspects of governance were not always effective in identifying shortfalls we found in record keeping.” from the report
Medicines records still being embedded
needs fixingThe provider was still improving records and audits for medicines, including medicines given only when needed. These systems had not yet become established in practice.
“The provider was doing ongoing work to improve and embed medicine systems, including 'as and when required' records and medicine audits.” from the report
Staff deployment and agency information
needs fixingPeople sometimes had to wait for support, and staff were not always deployed effectively on the first inspection day. Full information about some agency staff was not always obtained before they started work.
“People told us there were generally enough staff available, although at times it was difficult to find staff and they had had to wait for support.” from the report
End of life records
needs fixingRecords were not up to date for one person receiving end of life care. The provider was working on improving planning and gathering people's preferences earlier.
“Up to date records were not in place for a person receiving end of life care.” from the report
Dementia-friendly mealtimes
minorPeople living with dementia were not always reminded of meal choices or shown pictures of the food. The manager agreed to look into this.
“Dementia friendly approaches were not always followed at mealtimes.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the medicines records and audits since this inspection, especially for medicines given only when needed?
- 02How do you now make sure quality checks identify problems and that actions are recorded and signed off?
- 03How do you ensure end of life care plans are up to date and reflect each person's wishes?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff available and that they are deployed effectively throughout the day?
- 05How are agency staff checked and how do you ensure their full information is available before they start work?
This was a planned inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; inspectors reviewed eight care records and nine medication records. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 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.
Every inspection of Hambleton Grange
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 August 2015.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.