CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hucknall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe. They found systems for PPE, testing, visiting, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not reported on in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not reported on in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not reported on in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not reported on in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Heathcotes (Hucknall and Watnall) was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, with some risk assessments and cleaning guidance needing attention.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 20 November 2020. It was carried out because of the COVID-19 pandemic and looked only at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, social distancing, shielding, admissions, protective equipment, testing and outbreaks safely. The home was clean and had an enhanced cleaning schedule.
There were some gaps. Not all staff who might be at increased risk from COVID-19 had risk assessments. Inspectors also signposted the registered manager to guidance about cleaning products for use during an outbreak.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was following safe infection prevention and control procedures.
“We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Testing arrangements
The home had arrangements for testing people living there and staff in line with government guidance.
“The provider had arrangements in place to ensure people and staff were tested for COVID-19 in accordance with current government guidance.” from the report
Visiting and cleaning
Visitors were screened and expected to follow PPE and social distancing guidance. The home also used an enhanced schedule for cleaning frequently touched surfaces.
“There was a clear system for visitors in place to ensure they followed the current guidance on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing.” from the report
Staff risk assessments
needs fixingNot all staff who might be disproportionately at risk from COVID-19 had risk assessments in place.
“Staff who may be disproportionately at risk of COVID-19 did not all have risk assessments in place.” from the report
Cleaning product guidance
minorThe home was clean, but inspectors signposted the registered manager to guidance about which cleaning products to use during an outbreak.
“Although the service was very clean, we signposted the registered manager to guidance around specific cleaning products to use during an outbreak.” from the report
- 01Have risk assessments now been completed for every staff member who may be disproportionately at risk from COVID-19?
- 02Which cleaning products would the home use during an infection outbreak, following the guidance mentioned by inspectors?
- 03How are people living here and staff tested for COVID-19 now?
- 04What screening, PPE and social distancing rules apply to visitors?
- 05How does the home help people go out into the community safely while managing infection risks?
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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, January 2020
Rated Good and no longer in special measures; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care after major improvements.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 and 4 December 2019. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, incident records, recruitment records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, supported by trained staff, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care.
The previous inspection had rated the service Inadequate, with several breaches of regulations. The provider had made enough improvements to meet those regulations. The service had been in special measures since June 2019, but it was no longer in special measures after this inspection.
Risk and safeguarding
Inspectors found that risks were assessed, managed and reviewed. Staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns, and people and relatives said people felt safe.
“Risks to peoples health and wellbeing were assessed, mitigated, managed and reviewed regularly.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff's kindness and respect. Staff encouraged people to make choices and do as much as possible for themselves.
“We saw respectful interactions between staff and people, with people offered a choice and encouraged to do things for themselves.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences, histories and communication methods. Families and people were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“Peoples care plans were individualised and contained clear guidance for staff on how to meet peoples specific needs and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, keep in touch with family and develop independence. The home also supported cultural and faith needs.
“The service supported people to keep in contact with their families, helping them make telephone calls or taking them to visit.” from the report
Improved management oversight
The provider had introduced clearer leadership arrangements and regular checks on care, risks and service quality. Inspectors found the provider was no longer in breach of the previously identified regulations.
“There was a clear auditing system to ensure ongoing, weekly and monthly monitoring of risks and support delivered.” from the report
Recent management changes
needs fixingThere had been many changes in management. Relatives were positive about the new arrangements but wanted the service to become more stable.
“There have been a lot of changes of management…but [new manager] is willing and capable. We are hoping for some stability now.” from the report
Size and setting
minorThe service was registered for 16 people, which inspectors said was larger than current best practice guidance. It was split across two homes, and inspectors said this reduced the impact on people.
“The service was registered for the support of up to 16 people. This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
Advocacy information
minorAdvocacy information was not easily available when inspectors visited. The manager put information on display after inspectors raised this.
“At the time of the inspection the service did not have advocacy information easily available for people.” from the report
- 01What steps have been taken to keep the management team stable since this inspection?
- 02How are staff shared between the two homes, and how do you make sure this does not reduce staffing levels?
- 03How do you monitor the use of physical or chemical restraint and make sure less restrictive approaches are tried first?
- 04How do people and families access advocacy information now?
- 05How have the improvements made after the previous Inadequate rating been kept in place and checked?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home, including its premises and care, and it assessed all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 January 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.
Every inspection of Hucknall
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 June 2016.
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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.