CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Holmer Court Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were generally managed safely, staffing was sufficient and infection control arrangements were in place. They found some minor oversights in risk assessment records, medicine dates and a door's finish.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The rating from the previous comprehensive inspection was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report does record that people and relatives were positive about the care and staff support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The rating from the previous comprehensive inspection was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found an open culture, clear management arrangements, good teamwork and regular quality checks. The manager was described as willing to act on feedback and make improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Rated Good, with safe care and good leadership, but inspectors found a few minor record-keeping and medicines oversights.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 9 October 2020. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led after concerns were raised about unsafe care and staff training. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, safeguarding and incident records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, suitable recruitment checks and arrangements to manage risks and infections. People and relatives said staff knew them well and provided kind, safe support.
A few issues were found and dealt with during the inspection. One person's safety knowledge had not been written into a risk assessment. Some medicines were still being used after their shorter manufacturer dates, and one door needed painting. The report says these issues had not affected people's safety.
Safety and safeguarding
Staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse. They understood people's risks and used care plans and equipment to support people safely.
“People's safety was promoted by staff who knew how to recognise and report any concerns to keep people safe from harm and systems were used to learn from incidents.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with recruitment checks and training arrangements in place.
“There were enough staff to support people's care and safety needs.” from the report
Infection control
The home was clean and inspectors were assured that measures for visitors, PPE, testing, distancing and possible outbreaks were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found positive leadership, good teamwork and regular checks on care quality, medicines and safety.
“There was a positive and open culture at the home, where staff and management alike wanted people to receive the best outcomes in their care.” from the report
Medicine systems
Staff who gave medicines were trained and checked. Records generally showed that medicines were given safely and as prescribed.
“People's medicines were managed by staff trained to do so with their competencies regularly checked.” from the report
Risk assessment record
minorStaff knew how to support one person's safety, but this information had not been written in the person's risk assessment. The manager corrected this immediately, and inspectors said it had not affected safety.
“Although staff had good knowledge of how to support a person's safety in an area of the home this had not been written into a risk assessment.” from the report
Medicine use-by instructions
needs fixingSome creams and liquid medicine were still being used after their shorter manufacturer dates, although they were within the manufacturer's overall expiry date. New stock was obtained and procedures were changed during the inspection.
“Some prescribed creams and a liquid medication that had a shortened, "Do not use after [dates]" were still being used.” from the report
Minor environmental repair
minorOne door needed painting to keep the surface hygienic. The manager arranged for this to be completed immediately.
“One door required painting, so this remained a hygienic surface.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every person's safety knowledge and support guidance is recorded in their risk assessment?
- 02What checks are now in place to prevent creams and liquid medicines being used after their shorter manufacturer dates?
- 03How do you monitor staffing levels and training when people's needs change?
- 04How are infection control measures, PPE and visiting arrangements being maintained?
- 05How do you involve relatives and keep them updated about changes in care, particularly when visits are restricted?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were not inspected and were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 October 2020 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, November 2019
Holmer Court Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, a relative, a family friend, staff and visiting professionals. Records about care, medicines, recruitment and management were also checked.
The inspectors found that people were safe, supported by enough knowledgeable staff and given their medicines safely. Care plans and risk assessments were up to date. The home was clean and staff followed infection control procedures.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's needs well and offered choices. Inspectors found a wide range of personalised activities, social opportunities and community links that supported people's well-being.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection rating was also Good, published in February 2017. In this report, Good means people's outcomes were consistently good and the service was consistently managed.
Personalised care
Staff knew people well and adapted care and activities to their individual needs, interests and changing abilities.
“Staff were passionate about providing care in a very personalised way and worked with the registered manager to facilitate this.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected people's dignity and supported them to make their own choices.
“We saw examples of staff being consistently kind and caring throughout the inspection.” from the report
Social opportunities
The home offered varied activities, friendships and links with the local community. Inspectors saw that these activities improved people's enjoyment and well-being.
“People benefited from the new initiatives and ideas to improve opportunities for social interactions.” from the report
Safe care systems
Risk assessments, medicines systems and incident reviews were in place. The home used learning from incidents, including changing staffing levels after identifying patterns in falls.
“Incidents and accidents were investigated, and actions were taken to prevent recurrence.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff said they were listened to. Feedback was used in improvement plans, and the management team worked with other organisations.
“There was a culture of openness that was reflected in all aspects of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How many staff vacancies are there now, and how often would regular or unfamiliar agency staff be used?
- 02How will you review and update my relative's care plan and risk assessments if their needs or abilities change?
- 03Which activities and community opportunities would suit my relative, and how do you check whether they are improving their well-being?
- 04How are families told about falls, illness or other incidents, and how is learning from these incidents shared?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in decisions about future or end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 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 Holmer Court Residential Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Holmer Court Residential Home →
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Holmer Court Residential Home →
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 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.