CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Homeleigh
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm, with risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment and medicines checks in place. Inspectors found that medicines management had improved.
- Effective?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess this question, so no new rating was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess this question, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess this question, so no new rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Checks and audits were effective, staff understood their roles and people were involved in decisions. A new manager was in post while the previous manager was working their notice.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Homeleigh is rated Good; inspectors found people felt safe and medicines management had improved.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 22 and 31 March 2022. They spoke with five people and five staff, observed staff interactions, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People said they were happy and felt safe. Staff supported people to go out, take part in activities and make choices about their lives. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk guidance and effective infection control measures.
Medicines management had improved since the previous inspection. Records, guidance and storage checks were in place. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good, but this report did not reassess all five areas.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they were happy and felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
“People told us they were happy and felt safe living at the service and staff supported them in the way they preferred.” from the report
Improved medicines management
The home had improved its medicines systems. Guidance, records, storage checks and controls for handwritten instructions were in place.
“At this inspection, improvements had been made. The use of 'homely remedies' medicines now followed guidance.” from the report
Support for choice and independence
People could decide when they wanted support to go out. Staff supported people to attend clubs, groups, events and meet friends.
“People were supported to make the decision about where they went and what they did.” from the report
Effective oversight
Audits identified shortfalls and action was taken to put them right. Staff had a clear management structure and understood their responsibilities.
“At this inspection, checks and audits had been effective at identifying shortfalls and action had been taken to rectify them.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are medicines, including 'as and when' medicines and liquid medicines, checked now?
- 02How will the new manager's plans for the keyworker system and sensory activities be put into practice?
- 03How will you make sure there are enough staff when people want support to go out?
- 04When will the electronic care planning system be introduced, and how will families be involved?
- 05What were the previous Requires Improvement concerns, and how are you checking that the improvements continue?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 April 2022 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, April 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but medicines were not always managed safely.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 March 2019 by one inspector. The inspector reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, complaints, audits, staff records and meeting notes. They also spoke with four people living at the home and members of staff.
People usually received their medicines as prescribed, but there were several safety problems. Some instructions were not checked by two staff, liquid medicines were not always dated when opened, and there was not enough guidance for some medicines given when needed. One medicine had been given without a record that a GP had agreed it.
The home had enough staff and was clean. People were supported by staff who knew them, treated them with kindness and helped them stay independent. Care was rated Good in the Effective, Caring and Responsive areas.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2016 to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement because medicines were not managed safely and the quality checks had not found these problems.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect. Staff knew people's preferences and responded to their needs.
“We observed people being treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Enough staff
People said there were enough staff and that staff were available to support them and go out with them.
“There were sufficient staff on duty, permanent staff covered sickness and annual leave, so that people had a consistent staff group.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in their care planning and were supported to make choices, take part in activities and build independence.
“People's care plans were reviewed regularly, people were involved in the process and signed to say they agreed with the plan.” from the report
Support for health and independence
Staff monitored people's health, arranged healthcare appointments and encouraged healthy activities. People were supported to develop skills for greater independence.
“People were encouraged to lead as healthy life as possible.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicine instructions were not double-signed, liquid medicines were not always dated when opened, and some as-needed medicines lacked clear instructions. One medicine had no record of GP agreement.
“The provider had failed to ensure the proper and safe management of medicines.” from the report
Quality checks missed medicine problems
needs fixingThe home carried out medicine audits, but these did not check all the required details. The audit did not identify the shortfalls found by inspectors.
“However, they did not check that handwritten directives had been double signed and bottles had been dated when opened.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure all handwritten medicine instructions are checked and signed by two staff?
- 02How do you record the opening dates of liquid medicines and decide when they must no longer be used?
- 03What written guidance is now available for medicines given as needed for pain or anxiety?
- 04How do your current medicines audits check all these points, and what were the results of the latest audit?
- 05What evidence can you show that the Regulation 12 breach has been resolved?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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 Homeleigh
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.