CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hulton House
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
- Safe?
- Inspected but not rated
- Inspectors found that young people were protected from avoidable harm. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, risk management, infection control and emergency arrangements were described as safe.
- Effective?
- Inspected but not rated
- Care and treatment were provided by a multi-disciplinary team, with health needs, consent, training and education addressed. Inspectors said it was not clear how long-term mental health recovery would be measured, and records were difficult to navigate.
- Caring?
- Inspected but not rated
- Staff were described as kind, compassionate and respectful. Young people were involved in decisions, and care records reflected their wishes and feelings.
- Responsive?
- Inspected but not rated
- Support was personalised and based on each young person's needs, preferences and goals. Young people were supported with education, activities, family relationships, independence and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Inspected but not rated
- Inspectors found open leadership, regular meetings, staff support, partnership working and quality checks. The provider used incident reviews and audits to identify learning and improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Hulton House: the supplied report is for Sonning Drive, which inspectors found safe, caring, responsive and well-led, but it was inspected but not rated.
The report text does not describe Hulton House. It describes a children's home called Sonning Drive. This is important because the findings may not apply to the service you are considering.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 13 February 2019. They spoke with a young person, parents, staff and other professionals, and reviewed care files, staff records, medicines records and quality checks.
The home was found to be safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. However, all five areas were marked "Inspected but not rated", so this report does not give formal CQC ratings such as Good or Outstanding.
The report was republished on 6 April 2023 because changes were needed, but it says the findings and narrative from the inspection did not change.
Personalised support
Care plans were tailored to each young person and were developed with their involvement. Staff were said to know the young people's needs, preferences and goals well.
“Young people received person centred support focused on what mattered most to them.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors observed respectful and empathetic interactions. Young people, parents and partner agencies described the staff as caring.
“Staff were compassionate, kind and caring and developed good relationships with the young people using the service.” from the report
Safety arrangements
The home had detailed risk plans, safeguarding procedures, medicines systems and checks on the building and equipment.
“We saw good systems in place to appropriately assess and manage risks to the young people and monitor their safety.” from the report
Preparation for adulthood
Staff supported young people to build practical skills, make choices and prepare for greater independence.
“There was a strong focus on preparing young people for adulthood with creative ways of supporting and enabling their transition to independence.” from the report
Care records were hard to follow
needs fixingInspectors said records were not easily navigated because of a complicated filing system. They were not combined into one file with an overall care plan.
“Records were not easily navigated, due to a complicated filing system.” from the report
Long-term recovery measures were unclear
needs fixingShort-term progress was recorded, but inspectors could not see clearly how long-term desired mental health recovery would be measured.
“However, it was not clear how the long term desired mental health recovery would be measured for each of the young people.” from the report
Staff vacancies
minorThere were three recent vacancies. Some waking night shifts were being covered by agency staff, although the report says they knew the home and the children and had the necessary checks.
“The staff team was small and three recent vacancies were being managed by a recruitment process that was underway at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01Why does this report refer to Sonning Drive rather than Hulton House, and can you provide the correct CQC report for this service?
- 02How have you improved the filing system so that care records are easier to navigate?
- 03How do you now measure each young person's long-term mental health recovery?
- 04Have the three staff vacancies mentioned in the report been filled, and how often are agency staff used for waking night shifts?
- 05How are young people involved in updating their risk plans and positive behaviour support plans?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the children's home described as Sonning Drive, not Hulton House; all five areas were inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 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 Hulton House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2019Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 May 2018.
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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £950 to £1,160 a week. 30 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.