CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hempstalls Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment, secure medicines management and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and assessed as competent. People's health, dietary and communication needs were assessed, and the home worked with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in daily decisions and supported to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences and support needs. People could choose their routines, activities, where to spend time and how to maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and provider used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality. Inspectors found an open culture and strong links with the local community.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with 11 people, two relatives and five staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home provided personal care for 38 older people, including people living with dementia. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff knew them well, and care was kind, respectful and personalised.
Medicines, risk assessments, staffing, infection control and accident monitoring were found to be managed safely. People were supported to make choices, eat and drink well, access health services and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published in December 2016.
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Staff knew people's routines, preferences and interests well. Inspectors saw caring and compassionate interactions.
“People were supported by a staff team that knew them exceptionally well and were kind and caring.” from the report
Safe care
Risk assessments, staffing, medicines and infection control were all found to be managed safely.
“People's care plans contained detailed risk assessments which supported staff to promote people's safety.” from the report
Choice and independence
People could choose where to spend their time and when to get up, go to bed or have a bath or shower.
“People told us they could choose where they wanted to spend their time and when they wished to get up and go to bed” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered activities, outings and opportunities to maintain relationships and faith practices. Inspectors also found strong links with local groups.
“The home had a wide range of daily activities for people to participate in should they wish to” from the report
Respectful care
Staff protected people's privacy and dignity during personal care and supported people to do what they could for themselves.
“Throughout the day we observed staff support people whilst maintaining people's dignity” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure my relative's care plan is reviewed when their needs or preferences change?
- 02How will you support my relative to choose their daily routine, activities and where they spend their time?
- 03How do you check that medicines continue to be given safely and as prescribed?
- 04What activities and outings would be suitable for my relative's interests and abilities?
- 05How would you support my relative's communication, dietary needs and access to health services?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, including the accommodation and the personal care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 July 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but noted one medicines record error and limited soft-diet variety.
This was an unannounced inspection on 8 November 2016. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff and managers. They observed care and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, staff responded to call bells, and there were enough staff to provide care and support with medicines.
Inspectors found staff were skilled, respectful and caring. People were involved in their care planning, had access to activities and healthcare, and could raise complaints. There was one medicines record discrepancy, and some people raised concerns about meals, especially the variety of soft diets.
Enough staff
People said staff were available when needed and responded quickly to call bells. Inspectors also saw staff providing support when people needed it.
“There are always enough staff because they always respond quickly to my bell [nurse call alarm].” from the report
Kind and dignified care
Staff took time to talk with people, supported them patiently and protected their privacy during personal care.
“I am quite contented here, the staff look after me well.” from the report
Activities and interests
People could take part in activities inside and outside the home. Staff used information about people's interests to provide more personal support.
“There is always something going on I'm never bored.” from the report
People's views used
People and staff could raise suggestions and concerns. The home used meetings, questionnaires and audits to make changes, including buying new furnishings.
“The manager often gets back to us and tells what they have done regarding our comments.” from the report
Medicines record discrepancy
seriousOne medicines administration record had been signed even though the medicine had not been given. This was shared with the registered manager, who said it would be investigated.
“We found a discrepancy where the MAR had been signed but the medicines had not been administered.” from the report
Limited soft-diet variety
needs fixingPeople gave mixed views about the food. Inspectors were told there was not enough variety for people who needed a soft diet, and the home said it was taking action.
“there was a lack of variety of meals for people who required a soft diet.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the medicines record was signed although the medicine had not been administered?
- 02How do you now check that medicines records accurately show what people have received?
- 03What soft-diet choices are available, and what improvements have been made to their variety?
- 04How do you make sure care plans reflect each person's history, preferences and changing needs?
- 05How are people's views from meetings, complaints and questionnaires turned into improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC areas and providing ratings for each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 December 2016 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 Hempstalls Hall Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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 Staffordshire
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. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.