CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Housteads
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, infection risks were reduced and staffing was appropriate. Staff understood how to identify and report possible abuse.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, and staff had induction, training and supervision. People were supported with nutrition, healthcare referrals and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and respectful relationships. People were involved in care planning, and staff supported privacy, dignity, equality and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. People had activities, outings and communication support, and complaints were investigated with action taken.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had quality checks, audits and a clear management structure. People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback, and this rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Housteads was rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with well-led care improved since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 22 January 2020. They spoke with seven people, five relatives and staff, looked around all areas, and reviewed three people's care records, including medicines records.
They found that people were safe, received their medicines as prescribed, and had enough suitably recruited staff. Care plans reflected people's needs, staff received training, and people were supported with food, healthcare, activities and decisions about their care.
People and relatives spoke positively about the kindness of staff and the management. All five areas were rated Good. Well-led care had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in June 2017.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found good controls around medicines, including secure storage and staff who understood medicines management.
“Medicines practices were safe. There were good controls in place to make sure people got their medicines when they needed them” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave very positive feedback about staff. Inspectors also saw staff respecting privacy, dignity and people's preferred ways of being addressed.
“Staff promoted very caring relationships with the people who lived at the service.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, relationships, interests and faith practices. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“The care plan documentation was detailed and showed staff had got to know people's needs very well.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in varied activities and outings, including visits and trips in the minibus. Staff knew people's hobbies and interests.
“People had access to a varied programme of activities” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had monthly checks covering areas such as fire safety, care planning, medicines and cleanliness. The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“The registered manager had effective quality assurance systems and processes in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific care needs, and how often would their care plan be reviewed?
- 02How do you manage medicines, including pain relief or medicines that are needed only when required?
- 03What activities and outings would be suitable for my relative, including if they are living with dementia?
- 04How would you support my relative's wishes about end of life care and keep the family involved?
- 05How many staff are normally available during the day and night, and how do you cover absences?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; the well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in June 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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, June 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home needed to improve how it monitored fire safety and other quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 May 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed daily care and checked care plans, staff files, medicines records and management audits.
People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable training, good food and access to health professionals. Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, respect and patience.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because the fire risk assessment action plan was not kept up to date. The home was rated Good overall.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures.
“People told us they felt safe living at Housteads” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence. Inspectors observed positive and respectful interactions.
“We saw in all cases people were cared for by staff that were kind, patient and respectful.” from the report
Food and health support
People were offered a varied diet that reflected their needs and preferences. Records showed support from a range of health professionals.
“We found a varied and nutritious diet was provided to support people's health and respect their preferences.” from the report
Activities and choice
A range of activities was available, including exercise, singing, reminiscence and visiting entertainers. People could choose whether to take part.
“Records showed recent activities included visiting entertainers, singing, reminiscence and exercise classes.” from the report
Staff support improved
The earlier problem with staff supervision and appraisals had been addressed by this inspection.
“We found sufficient improvements had been made to meet the regulation.” from the report
Some night staff needed medicines training
needs fixingSome night staff were not fully trained to administer medicines. The home had arrangements for trained staff to provide pain relief, and further training had been booked.
“We identified some night staff were not fully trained to administer medicines” from the report
Mental Capacity Act knowledge varied
minorSome staff had only a basic understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and needed refresher training.
“However, some staff spoken with only had a basic understanding would benefit from refresher training to underpin their knowledge.” from the report
Some communication with relatives could improve
minorOne relative said they were not always kept updated when changes were made at the home.
“We are not kept updated. We come in and find things have changed like new furniture.” from the report
- 01Can you show us how the fire risk assessment action plan is now updated and checked?
- 02How many night staff are currently fully trained to administer medicines, including PRN medicines?
- 03What refresher training have staff received on the Mental Capacity Act?
- 04How will you keep relatives informed when changes are made at the home?
- 05How do you check that care plans contain enough detail for staff to support each person?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and checking improvements required after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 2017 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 Housteads
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 February 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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.