CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Holbrook Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe. They found effective procedures for visitors, testing, protective equipment, isolation and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed or rated in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Holbrook Hall was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors visited the home on 15 December 2020. The visit was announced and focused only on infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks.
They found the home clean and tidy, with testing, protective equipment, hand-sanitising stations and clear isolation areas. Staff had received training on using protective equipment safely.
Visitors were not allowed inside, but relatives could meet people through a Perspex screen after booking. Staff also supported contact through video calls and phone calls.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a rated result for safe care.
Clean environment
The home was visibly clean and tidy, with hygiene practices in place.
“The home was visibly clean and tidy.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment, testing and isolation arrangements to reduce infection risks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
Although visitors could not enter, the home had a booking system and a screened visiting area. The area was cleaned after each visit.
“Visitors could book a 45 minute slot and they did not access the home at any time.” from the report
Agency staff checks
The home had checks for agency staff, including testing, criminal record checks and mandatory training. Their work was monitored alongside experienced permanent staff.
“Robust procedures were in place to ensure the agency staff were suitable to work at the home.” from the report
Contact with relatives
Staff supported people to keep in touch with family and friends through technology and regular phone calls.
“Staff supported people to maintain contact with family and friends in other ways.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the home's current overall CQC rating, given that this inspection was not rated?
- 02How have visitor arrangements changed since the inspection, and can relatives now enter the home?
- 03How would the home safely manage a new admission, including the planned 14-day isolation period?
- 04How are agency staff checked, trained and supervised now?
- 05What arrangements are in place to separate people who test positive for COVID-19 from other residents?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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, September 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but medicines records and post-fall checks were not always safe.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 14 August 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care, medicines, accidents, training and other records, and checked the building.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People described kind and respectful staff, good activities, suitable food and a friendly atmosphere.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Medicines administration records were not always completed accurately, and records did not always show that people were monitored after unwitnessed falls. The home took immediate action on these issues, but inspectors said further improvement was needed.
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were friendly, helpful and caring. Inspectors saw that people were not rushed and were treated as individuals.
“We saw lots of positive interactions between people and staff, no one was rushed, and activities were person-centred.” from the report
Independence and choice
People were supported to make choices, come and go into the community and continue activities such as volunteering and visiting family.
“People were free to come and go into the community as they wished with no restrictions.” from the report
Activities and community life
The home provided a wide range of activities inside and outside the home, including exercise, poetry and access to books.
“There was a strong emphasis on keeping people active, improving their mental and physical well-being through meaningful activities.” from the report
Positive management
Inspectors found a friendly culture and effective systems for monitoring care. People, relatives and staff gave very positive feedback about the management.
“There was an effective system to monitor and provide oversight on the service with day to day involvement from the owners.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousStaff did not always sign records to show creams had been applied. Some handwritten medicines records were not transcribed and checked accurately against prescription directions.
“Staff had not consistently signed records to indicate creams had been applied.” from the report
Checks after falls
seriousAlthough staff said people had been observed after incidents, records did not show clearly that monitoring had taken place after some unwitnessed falls.
“Further improvements were required to demonstrate how staff monitored people for injuries that may appear following unwitnessed falls.” from the report
Care plan updates
needs fixingSome paper care plans used by staff did not contain the latest information about people's needs and risks. The review system did not clearly show changes over time.
“Paper-based care plans which were available to care staff did not contain the most up to date information about people's needs and risks.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every medicines record is signed and accurately matches the prescription?
- 02What checks are made after an unwitnessed fall, and how are those checks recorded?
- 03How do staff make sure the paper care plans they use contain the latest information about a person's needs and risks?
- 04How will you show that care plan reviews clearly record changes in people's needs?
- 05What recent audits or checks can you show about medicines and care plan records?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home environment; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 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.
Every inspection of Holbrook Hall
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“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.