CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Hunningley Grange Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Hunningley Grange Residential Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good support, but unsafe medicines records and weak oversight remained.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 20 June 2023. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Caring. Staff were kind, people were treated with dignity, care plans described people's needs, staff had suitable training, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Medicines records were not always accurate, activities were limited and not always person-centred, and quality checks did not reliably find problems.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement. The home had improved since the previous inspection, but it was still in breach of regulations for medicines and governance.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as friendly and caring. Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that staff understood people's routines and support needs.
“People were well treated and supported. We observed positive and caring interactions throughout our inspection, where time allowed this.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors observed enough staff to meet people's needs, with prompt responses during the visit. Recruitment for more staff was also taking place.
“We observed there were enough staff available to meet people's needs and staff responded to people promptly during this inspection.” from the report
Improved environment
The home had dementia-friendly signs, contrasting colours and sensory items to help people find their way around and engage with their surroundings.
“The provider had incorporated dementia friendly signage throughout the building to assist people with orientating around the building.” from the report
Medicine records
seriousRecords for creams, patches and controlled drugs were incomplete or inaccurate. This meant inspectors could not be assured that medicines were always given and recorded safely.
“Medicine records were not always accurate which placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits did not identify the medicine and care-recording problems found during the inspection. This was a continued governance breach.
“Quality assurance checks did not always identify improvements required to ensure people's safety.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingRelatives wanted more structured and regular activities suited to individual needs. The inspector made a recommendation for improving activities.
“Further improvements were required in this area to ensure activities were available more often and were person-centred and meaningful to people.” from the report
Progress not fully embedded
needs fixingThe home had improved since the previous inspection, but inspectors said the changes were not yet consistently built into everyday practice.
“Further improvement was needed to ensure the progress made is sustained and embedded into everyday practice.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that creams and other topical medicines are recorded every time they are applied?
- 02How do you record and audit controlled drugs, including medicines received, used and disposed of?
- 03What structured activities are now available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and needs?
- 04How do managers check that care is delivered in line with each person's care plan?
- 05What actions from the inspection report have been completed, and how will you show that improvements are lasting?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, after the previous inspection found breaches. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 2023 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 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff but concerns about staffing, cleanliness, activities and management checks.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 25 October 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management documents.
The home was rated Requires Improvement in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found risks were usually identified and medicines were generally given as prescribed. They also saw staff being kind and caring, and relatives described staff as friendly and approachable.
There were important shortfalls. Some areas needed deep cleaning, staffing was not always enough, and dementia-friendly signs, objects and activities were limited. Some training needed refreshing, menus were not displayed in a useful format, and management checks had failed to identify several problems.
The provider was told to improve person-centred care and infection control. CQC issued a warning notice about good governance and said it would continue to monitor progress.
Kind staff
Inspectors saw staff interacting kindly with people. People and relatives described staff as caring, friendly and approachable.
“We observed staff interacting with people and found they were kind and caring.” from the report
Care information
Care plans gave staff information about people's needs and how they preferred to be supported. Staff were also described as knowing people well.
“Care plans were informative and described people's needs and how they liked to be supported.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff had safeguarding training and knew what to do if they suspected abuse. The manager kept records of concerns and actions taken.
“Staff received training in safeguarding and knew what to do if they suspected abuse.” from the report
End of life support
End of life care plans were in place. Staff supported people to remain comfortable and supported their families.
“Staff ensured people were comfortable and that support was offered to their family members.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousMany areas needed a deep clean, including some furniture, beds and bathrooms. Storage and bins also made effective cleaning harder.
“Many areas required a deep clean, storerooms were untidy, and items were stored on the floor making cleaning difficult.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousThere were times when too few staff were available, and people sometimes waited for help. The manager was recruiting more staff.
“Through our observations and speaking with people, relatives and staff, we found people were not always supported by sufficient staff to meet their needs.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
needs fixingThere was limited signage, few pictures or objects of interest, and some facilities were not easy for people living with dementia to use.
“The home had minimal signage to assist people to navigate around the home.” from the report
Activities and social contact
needs fixingThere were few activities and little suitable stimulation. The bingo activity was hard to see and hear, and staff had to leave it to answer call bells.
“We found there was a lack of social activities within the home and a lack of tactile items for people to engage with.” from the report
Management checks
seriousAudits and provider visits did not identify several problems found by inspectors. This was a continued breach of good governance.
“Systems in place to monitor the service were not always effective.” from the report
Personal support
needs fixingSome people did not always receive the help they needed with their appearance and dignity. The report also found that care was not always adapted to people's preferences.
“Some people had not always received personal support they required to brush their hair and appropriately dress.” from the report
- 01What has been done to deep-clean the home, improve storage and provide suitable bins?
- 02How many staff are now on duty at different times, and how do you make sure people do not wait too long for help?
- 03What dementia-friendly signs, pictures and objects are now available?
- 04What regular activities are offered, especially for people living with dementia?
- 05How are audits now checking cleanliness, meals, dignity, activities and person-centred care?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the service and covered all five key questions; the previous focused inspection in 2021 covered Safe, Effective and Well-led only. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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.
Every inspection of Hunningley Grange Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- July 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Hunningley Grange Residential Home →
- December 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Hunningley Grange Residential Home →
- September 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 November 2020.
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
At least 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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. 82 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.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.