CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hudson Street
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks were well managed, staffing was sufficient, and medicines were administered and stored safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed before they moved in. Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with food, healthcare and legal decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, listened to them and treated them with respect. Staff supported people to make choices and remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and regularly reviewed. People took part in activities, trips and holidays that reflected their choices and interests.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider carried out monthly quality checks and acted on issues found. People and staff were asked for their views, and the service worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with the home larger than current best-practice guidance.
This was a planned inspection on 4 June 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience visited, spoke with five people, managers and care staff, and checked care and staff records. They also considered information from professionals, complaints and the provider.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, risks and medicines were managed, staffing was sufficient, and staff were trained and properly checked.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. The home had systems for handling complaints and checking the quality of care.
The home was larger than current best-practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said its design and location reduced the possible negative impact of its size. The overall Good rating remained the same as at the previous inspection, published in December 2016.
Safety and risk management
Inspectors found that risks were well managed and that the provider learned from accidents and incidents. There were enough staff, and recruitment checks were completed.
“The provider learned from accidents and incidents. They made changes to reduce the risk of them reoccurring.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, develop skills and become more independent. Staff planned care around people’s communication needs, preferences and interests.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind, listened to them and respected their privacy. Care records described what people could do for themselves.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Activities and community links
People regularly attended activities and events in the local community, including trips and holidays. The home also ran a community club.
“People regularly attended events and activities of their choice in the local community, and enjoyed going on trips and holidays.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider used monthly audits, including discussions with people and staff, checks of the premises and reviews of records and complaints.
“They carried out a monthly audit, which included interviews with people and staff, an inspection of the premises, and a review of records and complaints.” from the report
Larger than best-practice guidance
minorThe home accommodated up to 12 people and was larger than current best-practice guidance for this type of setting. Inspectors said the design and surrounding homes helped reduce the possible negative impact.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
Further refurbishment planned
minorSome areas had recently been refurbished, but the report says more refurbishment was included in the provider’s business plan. Ask what work has since been completed.
“The registered manager described how further refurbishment of the home was part of the provider's business plan.” from the report
- 01What further refurbishment has been completed since the inspection, and what work remains?
- 02How will you make sure the home’s larger size does not affect my relative’s privacy, independence or quality of life?
- 03How will my relative be involved in their care planning and day-to-day decisions?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How do you check that medicines, risks and staffing continue to be managed safely?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the overall and five area ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 June 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.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some training and room-safety issues to keep under review.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 October 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff, a visitor and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, staff records, training records, medicines and other documents.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that the home was clean and safely maintained, medicines were handled safely, and people were supported by staff who understood their needs.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They were involved in their care plans, daily activities and decisions about their lives. The home had improved since the previous inspection, when maintenance and cleanliness were inadequate and audits had not identified these problems.
Improved cleanliness and maintenance
The home had improved its cleanliness and general condition since the previous inspection. Communal areas had been redecorated and flooring had been replaced where needed.
“At this inspection we found that the registered manager had carried out improvements to the cleanliness of the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm relationships between staff and people. Staff understood people's personal histories, preferences and emotional needs.
“We saw staff had a good rapport with people whilst treating them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Choice and independence
People helped shape their care and were supported to make decisions, develop skills and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People were supported to engage in daily activities they enjoyed and which supported them towards independence.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored securely, records were completed correctly and staff had been trained to administer medicines safely.
“People's medication was managed safely.” from the report
Effective management
The home had an active quality assurance system and used feedback from people, professionals and visitors to plan improvements.
“The service had an effective quality assurance system in place.” from the report
Clutter in some bedrooms
needs fixingSome individual rooms were disorganised and cluttered. Inspectors said this could create fire safety and trip risks, although staff worked with people to reduce these risks.
“their individual rooms were at times disorganised and cluttered which could lead to risks around fire safety and trip hazards.” from the report
Training renewals
needs fixingMost staff training was up to date, but some training had passed its renewal date. The home had a plan to put this right.
“although most training was up to date, some training for some staff was past the date when it should be renewed.” from the report
DoLS notifications
needs fixingThe home had not notified CQC about seven renewed Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations. The manager said this would be corrected once they understood the requirement.
“the service had not notified CQC other than in the PIR.” from the report
Feedback surveys
minorThe manager accepted that the home had not been as active as it could have been in distributing surveys and encouraging people to complete them.
“the registered manager agreed that they had not been as proactive as they could have been in distributing surveys and encouraging them to be completed.” from the report
Recruitment and shift cover
minorThe manager said staff turnover and recruitment difficulties sometimes made shifts hard to cover. Inspectors found that staffing levels were sufficient at the time of the inspection.
“sometimes it was difficult to cover shifts without asking existing staff to work extra hours or using agency staff.” from the report
- 01How do staff work with residents to keep individual bedrooms safe while respecting their choices and independence?
- 02Which staff training was overdue at the inspection, and has all of it now been renewed?
- 03How are Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations recorded and notified to CQC?
- 04How do you check that staffing levels remain safe when recruitment is difficult or agency staff are needed?
- 05How do residents and relatives give feedback, and how are suggestions turned into improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and providing an overall rating for the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 December 2016 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 Hudson Street
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.