CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hamelin
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed and managed, staffing levels were considered sufficient, and medicines were generally administered safely. However, two recruitment files did not contain satisfactory evidence about previous employment.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff understood people's needs and supported their health, diet, choices and independence. Inspectors found that not all staff had received specialist mental health training for the complex needs of people living at the home.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were friendly, respectful and supportive. People were involved in their care plans, could make choices about their lives and were free to come and go from the home.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care records were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported to follow their interests, maintain relationships and take part in activities in the home and wider community.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and healthcare professionals were positive about the management. Audits and checks were used to identify and address shortfalls, although there was no formal way to record general feedback from people living at the home.
What inspectors found, September 2018
Hamelin rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, with improvements needed to recruitment checks and specialist staff training.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 24 July 2018. Inspectors met five people living at the home, staff and managers. They also spoke with relatives, healthcare professionals and the local authority, and reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated with dignity. Staff knew people well, supported their independence and helped them take part in activities at home and in the community.
Inspectors found some shortfalls but no serious risks or concerns. Two recommendations were made. These concerned the provider's recruitment systems and the specialist mental health training given to staff.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and comfortable with staff. Risks linked to mental health, medical needs and the environment were assessed and managed.
“People were relaxed and comfortable with the staff who supported them. People told us they felt safe.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, needs and goals. People were involved in decisions about their support and were encouraged to become more independent.
“People's care records were written in a person-centred way and described how each person wished to receive their care and support.” from the report
Respect and choice
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People could choose how they spent their time and were free to come and go from the home.
“People continued to have control over their lives and were free to come and go from the home as they pleased.” from the report
Activities and community links
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and to maintain links with the local community, friends and family.
“People had many different opportunities to socialise and take part in activities if they wished to do so.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits covering medicines, incidents, care records and the environment. Records showed that identified shortfalls were acted on.
“These audits and checks supported the registered manager in identifying shortfalls which needed to be addressed.” from the report
Recruitment information
needs fixingTwo of four recruitment files did not contain satisfactory evidence about conduct in previous employment. Managers at the home did not always have access to all staff recruitment files.
“However, we found two recruitment files that did not contain satisfactory evidence of conduct in previous employment.” from the report
Specialist staff training
needs fixingRecords showed that some staff had not received specialist mental health training needed to support the complex needs of people living at the home.
“However, records showed that not all staff had received specialist mental health training to support the complex needs of people living at home.” from the report
Conflicting medicine advice
needs fixingOne person's records gave conflicting advice about a pain-relief medicine. The manager sought medical advice and updated the records after the inspection, and the person was not affected.
“one person's care records contained conflicting advice in relation to the administration of a pain relieving medicine.” from the report
Feedback records
minorThe provider did not have a formal way to record general feedback from people living at the home, other than feedback about activities or care plan reviews.
“However, we found the provider had no formal way of recording feedback from people who lived at the home apart from in relation to activities or through care plan reviews.” from the report
- 01Do managers at the home now have access to every staff member's full recruitment file, including evidence of conduct in previous employment?
- 02Have all staff who support people with complex mental health needs completed the specialist training identified in the report?
- 03What changes were made to the care records after the conflicting advice about the pain-relief medicine was found?
- 04How do you now collect and record general feedback from people living at the home?
- 05What evidence can you show that the two recommendations from this inspection were completed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings; the overall Good rating had remained unchanged since the previous inspection in March 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 September 2018 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 Hamelin
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2011.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.