CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hobbits Holt
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, risk assessments, infection control and learning from incidents were found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, skills and support needed for their roles. People's health, nutrition, communication and legal rights were considered, and this area had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and compassionate. People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to be as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was individualised and flexible. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication needs and future wishes, including end of life planning.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers monitored the quality of the service and acted on issues. Staff, families and other professionals were involved, and the home worked with health and social care services.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Hobbits Holt is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with previous training and supervision improvements completed.
The inspection took place on 25 June 2019. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care plans, recruitment, training and management records. Feedback was also sought from a healthcare professional and a family member.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, kind care, personalised support and good management oversight.
The previous inspection had found that the Effective area needed improvement because staff did not always receive regular formal supervision. This inspection found the planned improvements had been completed, including better training and monitoring of staff competence.
Improved staff training
Training and supervision systems had improved since the previous inspection. Staff competence was checked routinely, including for medicines and safeguarding.
“Since our last inspection the records relating to the monitoring and training of staff had improved.” from the report
Individual care
Care plans were tailored to each person and updated as their needs changed. Communication information was provided in accessible formats, including pictures, symbols and large print.
“People had detailed and completely individualised care plans.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to choose activities, maintain relationships and develop skills. Staffing was arranged flexibly around what people wanted to do.
“Staffing arrangements were flexible to ensure people could do what they wanted, when they wanted.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed warm and caring interactions. Staff knew people's preferences and supported them in a person-centred way.
“We observed many friendly and caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Good management oversight
Managers used audits, checks and regular reviews to monitor care and identify improvements. The home also worked with health and social care professionals.
“Audits and other checks enabled the provider to monitor quality in the service.” from the report
Accident and incident records
minorThere had recently been concerns about the quality of staff recording for accidents and incidents. The manager reviewed this and changed the home's systems, but this is an area families may want to ask about.
“Where recent concerns had been raised around the quality of recording by staff in relation to accidents and incidents, the registered manager had conducted a review” from the report
- 01How will you assess whether the home can meet my relative's specific learning disability, autism and behavioural support needs?
- 02What training and competency checks will staff have for my relative's medicines and health conditions?
- 03What changes have been made to accident and incident recording, and how do managers check that records remain accurate?
- 04How will my relative choose activities, maintain relationships and build independence?
- 05How are my relative and family involved in reviewing the care plan and making decisions about future care?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC areas, including the care provided and the home environment; all ratings were assessed during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 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 overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but the service was not always effective.
Inspectors visited on 25 November 2016 after giving 12 hours' notice. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and managers. They looked at care records, staffing records, training information and quality checks.
People were described as safe and treated with kindness. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported activities, independence, health care and medicines. There were enough staff and recruitment checks had been completed.
The effective rating was Requires Improvement. Supervision meetings were not regular for all staff. Some training records were out of date, and some mental capacity assessments had not been reviewed. Care plans and quality checks were also being updated.
The overall rating was Good. This means the inspectors found the home performed well overall, but identified improvements needed in how staff support and management systems were recorded and checked.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated warmly and with dignity. Staff adapted how they communicated and supported people to make choices and remain independent.
“Staff supported people in a kind and passionate manner and ensured they were supported to have a good quality of life.” from the report
People felt safe
Staff understood safeguarding, personal risks and emergency arrangements. People's money and medicines were also managed through established systems.
“People benefited from a safe service where staff and the managers understood their safeguarding responsibilities.” from the report
Activities and independence
People took part in activities at home and in the community, including shopping, swimming, holidays and voluntary work. Staff supported people to build confidence and skills.
“People had been supported to develop their confidence and abilities to contribute to household tasks and explore new opportunities and interests in the community.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, communication needs and health support. People and, where appropriate, relatives were involved in planning care.
“People and where appropriate their relatives had been actively involved in developing their care and support plans.” from the report
Staff supervision was inconsistent
needs fixingNot all staff received private supervision meetings as often as the provider's policy expected. Observations of staff skills were not always recorded.
“However the regularity of staff supervisions was not consistent and in line with the provider's expectations and policies.” from the report
Some training records were out of date
needs fixingThe home could not clearly show that staff had up-to-date training in safe handling of medicines and the pharmacist's care of medicines course.
“However, there was no clear evidence that staff had received up to date training in the provider's safe handling of medicines course or the pharmacists care of medicines course.” from the report
Mental capacity reviews needed updating
needs fixingSome assessments had not been reviewed regularly to check whether people still lacked capacity for particular decisions.
“However not all mental capacity assessments had been regularly reviewed.” from the report
Management records needed strengthening
needs fixingSome safeguarding concerns had not been reported to CQC, and audits did not always lead to clear recorded action plans.
“However, staff had not always consistently informed CQC of any safeguarding concerns.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now received regular private supervision meetings, and how are these meetings recorded?
- 02Is all staff training in safe handling and management of medicines now up to date?
- 03Have all mental capacity assessments been reviewed and updated where needed?
- 04How are safeguarding concerns reported to CQC and other relevant agencies?
- 05Can you show me the current action plan from quality audits and explain what has been completed?
This was an announced inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions, including care records, staffing, training, medicines and management checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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 Hobbits Holt
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.