CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hambleton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by safeguarding systems, safe recruitment and safe medicines practices. Inspectors found some low-level environmental risks and missing risk information in some care plans, which was updated during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality assurance systems were not always effective. Audits had not identified or addressed some shortfalls in care planning and financial oversight.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good overall, but well-led was Requires Improvement because quality checks did not always identify shortfalls.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 and 26 May 2023. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors rated the home Good for Safe. People said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding, medicines were administered safely, recruitment checks were completed and incidents were monitored. Some environmental risks and gaps in care plans were found, but the care plans were updated during the inspection.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Audits did not always identify problems, including incomplete checks of people's finances and shortfalls in care planning. The provider said it would improve its oversight.
The overall rating remained Good because the ratings for the other areas were carried over from the previous inspection in 2020. This inspection did not assess Effective, Caring or Responsive.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and relatives gave positive feedback about the care and safety of their family members.
“People were protected by an effective safeguarding system.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored safely, records were complete and staff supported people to receive medicines as prescribed.
“People's medicine administration records were fully completed and well managed, supporting safe medicines practices.” from the report
Positive relationships
Inspectors saw friendly and responsive interactions. People appeared comfortable with staff.
“We observed positive and friendly interactions between staff and residents.” from the report
Support for health
The report found consistent evidence that people's health and wellbeing improved after moving to the home, with support to access health professionals.
“There was consistent evidence that people's health and wellbeing improved after they moved to the service.” from the report
Staff learning
Staff had opportunities for supervision, feedback and continuing development.
“There was an effective system in place that supported staff development and continuous learning.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingThe home's quality checks did not always find problems. People's finances were not always thoroughly audited, and some care planning shortfalls had not been identified.
“Quality assurance systems were in place, however, they were not always effective.” from the report
Care plan information
needs fixingSome care plans did not include information about risks linked to people's care needs. The provider updated these plans during the inspection.
“Some people's care plans were missing information about risks related to their care needs.” from the report
Environmental risks
minorUnused gas fires had protruding edges that could present a risk if someone fell. The provider said they would remove them.
“Gas fires in communal areas had protruding edges that presented a potential risk in the event of a fall.” from the report
Infection control surfaces
minorDining tables had porous, textured surfaces that were difficult to sanitise effectively, although cleaning was taking place.
“Dining tables had textured porous surfaces that are difficult to sanitise effectively.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. The home was being overseen by acting managers and directors.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01Have the unused gas fires with protruding edges now been removed?
- 02How do you make sure every person's care plan includes current information about their risks and medicines needs?
- 03How are people's finances now audited, and how often are these checks reviewed by senior management?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and when will a registered manager be in post?
- 05What action has been taken about the dining tables that were difficult to sanitise effectively?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection in 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 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, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one record-keeping improvement needed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with seven people, four staff and a health professional. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect, and staff supported choice, independence, health needs and community activities.
People's medicines were given safely and there were enough trained staff. Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. The home supported people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health difficulties.
The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 26 July 2017. That rating remained unchanged. Inspectors identified that records of weekly environmental checks needed to be improved, and the manager said action had been taken.
Kind and respectful staff
People trusted staff and were treated with dignity. Staff knew people's lives, interests and preferences.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff who they trusted.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, build skills and take part in work, hobbies and community activities.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were given by trained staff and records were checked. People and inspectors found there were enough staff to meet individual needs.
“Medicines were stored securely. Medicines and the medicine administration records in use were accurate and regularly checked for gaps and errors.” from the report
Personalised communication and care
Care plans included people's communication needs, cultural needs and preferences. Information was available in formats people could understand.
“Information was made available in range of formats such as easy read and electronic.” from the report
Environmental check records
needs fixingWeekly environmental checks took place, but the home did not record what was found or what action followed. The manager said new documentation had been introduced after the inspection.
“Weekly environmental checks were carried out, but no record was kept of what was found and the action taken.” from the report
- 01How are weekly environmental checks recorded now, and who checks that any required action has been completed?
- 02How would you support my relative to make everyday choices and develop their independence?
- 03How do staff communicate with people who need easy-read, visual or other forms of support?
- 04How do you make sure medicines are given at the right time and records remain accurate?
- 05What activities, work or community opportunities could my relative take part in?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings remaining unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2020 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 House
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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 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.