CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hancox Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm and staff understood safeguarding, risk management and emergency procedures. One missing risk plan for a skin lesion was put in place during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable induction, training and support. People received help with nutrition, healthcare and communication, and the home was working within the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people warmly and respectfully. People were supported to make choices, maintain relationships and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's health needs, routines, preferences and interests. Staff supported individual activities and used different communication methods, including pictures, large print and sign language.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as approachable and focused on person-centred care. Audits, feedback and action plans were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Hancox Close: rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with one missing skin-risk plan put right during the visit.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 February 2020. One inspector spoke with one person, two care workers and the registered manager. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People were supported by trained staff who knew their needs, choices and communication methods.
Inspectors found one person did not have a risk plan to track a skin lesion. The manager put one in place during the inspection. Other safety arrangements, including medicines, staffing, infection control and emergency plans, were found to be suitable.
The previous comprehensive inspection in October 2017 also rated the home Good in every area. This inspection found that the home had continued to provide a Good service.
Kind, respectful care
Staff communicated warmly and supported people's dignity, privacy, relationships and independence.
“Staff communicated with people in a warm and friendly manner.” from the report
Personal choice
People and their families were involved in care decisions, food choices, personal spaces and daily activities.
“People chose what they ate and drank.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, ongoing training and support. Inspectors saw staff use their training to manage choking and nutrition risks.
“The provider's induction procedures and ongoing training provided staff with the skills and competencies to carry out their role effectively.” from the report
Good communication
Staff knew how people communicated and used methods suited to their needs. Information was shared through handovers, daily records, briefings and a communication book.
“Where people had specific disabilities that affected their communication, the provider used a range of techniques to communicate with people such as large print, sign language and pictures.” from the report
Strong management checks
The manager used audits, feedback and action plans to monitor care and identify improvements.
“The audits and action plan helped the provider to monitor and improve care for the people using the service.” from the report
Missing skin-risk plan
needs fixingOne person did not have a risk assessment and management plan to track a skin lesion while it was being treated. The manager put a plan in place when inspectors raised this.
“One person however did not have a risk assessment and risk management plan in place to track the healing of a lesion to their skin” from the report
Care records being updated
minorThe manager said the format and detail of care records and support plans were being updated. Families should check whether this work was completed and whether records remain current.
“We are in the process of updating the format and detail of care records, updating all support plans and archiving older paperwork” from the report
- 01How is the skin lesion risk plan reviewed, and are there any other current health risks without a written plan?
- 02Was the planned update to the care records and support plans completed by April 2020?
- 03How do you make sure staffing levels change when a person's health or care needs change?
- 04How are medicine errors recorded, investigated and used to improve staff training?
- 05How will you support my relative's preferred communication method, activities and relationships?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home itself. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some medicines records needing improvement.
This was an announced, comprehensive inspection on 6 October 2017. One inspector spoke with the manager, senior staff, care staff and one relative. They observed care, reviewed two care plans, medicines records and quality checks.
The home supported six people with learning difficulties. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, individual risk assessments and detailed care plans. Staff supported people's choices, health needs, communication and daily routines. They were respectful, patient and kind.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection in October 2015. Inspectors did identify unsigned changes on some medicines records, one issue with ear drops and inconsistent recording of medical advice. The team leader acted immediately on the medicines issues.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing was flexible and gave people time with staff without rushing.
“There were enough staff to respond to people's needs without rushing and to spend time with people on an individual basis.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans and staff knowledge helped people receive care around their own routines, preferences and communication needs.
“Care plans provided staff with detailed person centred information about how people preferred their care and support to be delivered.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff adapted their approach to each person, supported communication and respected privacy and personal space.
“Staff treated each person as an individual and adapted their approach accordingly.” from the report
Good management checks
The home gathered feedback and used audits, meetings and visits from other managers to check the quality of care.
“There was a quality assurance system to ensure people received a safe, effective and responsive standard of care.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome handwritten changes on medicine records had not been checked by a second member of staff. The team leader acted immediately after inspectors raised this.
“Some handwritten amendments had been made to the Medicine Administration Records (MARs). These had not been signed or countersigned by a second member of staff” from the report
Ear drops not given as recorded
needs fixingOne person's ear drops were being given twice daily even though the record said they should be given at least three times daily. Immediate action was taken.
“One person's ear drops were only being applied twice a day, when the MAR said they should be given at least three times a day.” from the report
Inconsistent health records
minorInspectors found that medical advice had been sought and followed, but this was not always recorded consistently in people's care records.
“Whilst we were confident medical advice had been sought and implemented, we found it had not always been recorded consistently in people's records.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the inspection to prevent unsigned amendments to medicines records?
- 02How do you now check that medicines, including ear drops, are given at the correct times and doses?
- 03How do you make sure medical advice and changes in people's health are recorded consistently?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication, routines, food and drink needs?
- 05How will families be involved in care plan reviews and raising concerns?
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection covering all five key questions, and the ratings in all five areas remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 2017 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 Hancox Close
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 March 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Warwickshire
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 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.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.