CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hickling House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Hickling House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements, with some premises repairs still needed.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 March 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling coronavirus infections. The home had 28 people living there and could accommodate up to 29.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, outbreak management and infection control policies. The home had risk assessments and regular staff meetings to keep people up to date.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the premises. Some flooring needed replacing, and repairs were needed in communal bathroom and shower rooms and the laundry room. An action plan was drawn up.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a formal rating for the other care areas.
Infection control planning
The home had detailed risk assessments covering coronavirus management and safety for residents and staff.
“The service had developed comprehensive risk assessments to identify and cover areas relating to management of COVID-19” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
The home had created different visiting arrangements, including a purpose-built lodge with a dividing screen.
“The service had a purpose built wooden lodge specifically for relatives to visit people who lived in the service.” from the report
Staff communication
Daily meetings were used at the start of shifts to keep staff informed as guidance changed.
“At the beginning of the pandemic daily meetings had been held at the start of every shift” from the report
Support for people who tested positive
People who tested positive were given information about what would happen, which was intended to reduce anxiety.
“People living in the service who tested positive were given an information booklet which staff discussed with them” from the report
Premises repairs
needs fixingSome flooring needed replacing and repairs were needed in communal bathroom and shower rooms and the laundry room. An action plan was created after the inspection.
“there was flooring that needed replacing and repair work needed in a couple of the communal bathroom/shower rooms and in the laundry room.” from the report
- 01What work has been completed to replace the flooring and repair the communal bathroom and shower rooms?
- 02Has the laundry room repair work in the inspection action plan been completed?
- 03How are visits arranged now, and are the visiting lodge and other visiting arrangements still available?
- 04How does the home currently manage testing, PPE and outbreaks?
- 05How would staff support and inform my relative if they tested positive for coronavirus or another infection?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 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, August 2018
Hickling House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but identified some medicine, night staffing and privacy concerns.
This was an unannounced, first comprehensive inspection since the home was re-registered under the same owners. Inspectors visited on 6 August 2018. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff overall, suitable risk assessments, trained staff, good food and healthcare support, kind relationships, personalised care and meaningful activities.
There were some shortfalls. One person received an incorrect warfarin dose, medicine information was not always updated, two people reported delays at night, and two communal toilet locks were broken. The manager took some immediate action and said other issues would be addressed.
Good overall care
The home met the inspection standards across all five areas. Inspectors found safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led care.
“Overall rating for this service Good” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff built positive relationships with people, respected their dignity and encouraged independence and choice.
“Staff had built positive relationships with people and were kind, caring and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised activities
People could take part in activities based on their interests, both inside the home and in the local community.
“The service supported people to participate in activities which reflected their interests, both within the home and the local community.” from the report
Good leadership and checks
The manager was accessible, staff worked well together and audits were used to identify and complete improvements.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor, assess and improve the service.” from the report
Medicine error
seriousOne person received a minor incorrect dose of warfarin. Inspectors said this could have put the person's health at risk, although the manager took immediate action with the staff member involved.
“Another person received a minor incorrect dose of anticoagulant medicine warfarin the day before the inspection which could have placed the person's health at risk.” from the report
Out-of-date medicine information
needs fixingInformation about a discontinued medicine had not been removed. This could have confused staff and led to an error.
“for a person whose medicines prescribed on a when-required basis had been discontinued by the prescriber the written information had not been removed.” from the report
Night-time response
needs fixingMost people said staffing was sufficient, but two people felt there were not always enough staff at night. One person reported that staff did not respond promptly.
“Two other people said that they felt there were not always enough staff at night, one person saying they felt staff did not attend in a timely manner at night.” from the report
Broken toilet locks
minorTwo communal toilets had broken locks. Inspectors said this compromised people's privacy.
“We did identify two communal toilets which had broken locks, therefore compromising privacy.” from the report
DoLS reviews
needs fixingSome authorisations needed further review. The manager said this would be addressed.
“some of these required further review, which the registered manager said they would address.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made since the inspection to prevent medicine errors, including errors with warfarin?
- 02How do you check that discontinued or changed medicine instructions are removed promptly?
- 03How do you monitor response times and staffing levels at night?
- 04Have the two broken communal toilet locks been repaired?
- 05Have all outstanding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards reviews been completed?
This was an unannounced first comprehensive inspection after the service was re-registered under the same owners, and all five CQC areas were inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 August 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 Hickling House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 December 2017.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.