CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hembrigg Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines, recruitment, risk assessments, staffing arrangements and infection control were judged safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management responsibilities, quality checks and action plans. Staff felt able to raise concerns and felt listened to.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some building repairs and communication improvements still needed.
This was a focused inspection because concerns had been raised about medicines and staffing. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe and Well-led. They visited on 18 June 2021 and continued checking evidence until 5 July 2021.
People said they felt safe and that staff were kind. Inspectors found safe recruitment, enough planned staff, safe medicines practice and suitable infection control measures. Staff understood people's needs and supported independence and community access.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe and Well-led. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward. The overall rating stayed Good, as it had been at the previous inspection in 2017.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and knew how to respond to concerns.
“People told us they felt safe and that staff were kind.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored securely and records showed they were given correctly. Controlled medicines were managed appropriately and staff competencies were current.
“Records showed that people were given their medicines in the right way.” from the report
Individual support
Risk assessments and positive behaviour support plans were tailored to individuals. Inspectors found that staff understood and followed them.
“We found support plans were comprehensive and follow a corporate format based on that provided by NAPPI (Non-Abusive Psychological and Physical Intervention).” from the report
Good oversight
The home had audits and action plans covering areas such as incidents, medicines and support plans. Managers showed inspectors improvements already made and plans for further work.
“We found governance systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Independence and relationships
People were supported to maintain relationships, use the community and develop everyday skills. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
“People were encouraged and supported to maintain relationships and to access the community to prevent social isolation.” from the report
Building repairs
minorInspectors saw damage to floors and walls. A refurbishment plan with timescales was in place, but families should check what work has been completed.
“We found several environmental issues observed throughout the inspection. For example, damage to floors and walls.” from the report
Cover for short-term absence
needs fixingPlanned staffing was enough, but staff said short-term absence could be difficult to manage. Ask how this is handled when someone is unexpectedly away.
“Staff told us there were always enough staff on the initial roster, but short-term absence can be difficult to manage.” from the report
Family communication
minorOne relative wanted more communication from the home. Managers acted on this straight away, but families may wish to ask how communication is now managed.
“However, we spoke to one relative who told us they would like more communication from the service.” from the report
Family feedback
minorA resident and family questionnaire had not yet been completed when inspectors visited. The home was in the process of completing it.
“At the time of inspection, a resident/family questionnaire had not been completed.” from the report
- 01What repairs to the damaged floors and walls have been completed, and what work is still planned?
- 02How do you cover staff when there is short-term absence?
- 03How will you keep families updated about important events or changes?
- 04Has the resident and family questionnaire now been completed, and what did you learn from it?
- 05Can we see the latest ratings or findings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not assessed in this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 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, October 2017
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised support, with some improvements still being made.
Inspectors visited on 16 and 22 August 2017 without giving advance notice. This was the first inspection since the home opened in 2016. There were six people living there.
They spoke with people, staff and managers. They observed daily support and activities, checked three care records and three staff files, and reviewed medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable training, personalised care and good relationships between staff and the people living there.
Some communal areas were still being improved. Inspectors also found rubbish in the outside grounds, but the manager arranged for it to be cleared after the inspection.
Safe staffing
Inspectors saw enough staff to provide one-to-one support and found that recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“This meant people had their needs met in a timely way because staff were always available.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers used audits, staff meetings and feedback to check the service. The report says identified actions had been completed.
“Areas identified as needing attention had been completed and signed off.” from the report
Outside grounds needed attention
minorInspectors found rubbish, including duvets and cigarette buds, in the external grounds. The manager dealt with this and the grounds were cleared after the inspection.
“We saw the external grounds had rubbish in it including duvets and cigarette buds.” from the report
- 01How do you keep staffing levels sufficient for one-to-one support, including when staff are absent?
- 02How are people's Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications monitored and kept up to date?
- 03What improvements are still being made to the communal areas and outside grounds?
- 04How will you support the person's independence and goals during the 12 month placement?
- 05How are families involved in reviewing care plans and keeping in touch about healthcare needs?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five questions and giving an overall rating for the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 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 Hembrigg Park
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 August 2016.
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 Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.