CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hunters Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days. Inspectors spoke with 12 people, seven relatives and 19 staff. They also observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, comfortable and well cared for. Staff were trained, kind and attentive, and care was adapted when people's needs changed.
The home provided care for older people and people living with dementia. Inspectors found good links with health professionals, a varied activity programme and systems to monitor and improve care. The home had also remained Good since the previous inspection, published in September 2017.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke warmly about staff. Inspectors observed staff communicating respectfully and supporting people at their own pace.
“People and their relatives spoke positively about how kind, caring and compassionate staff were.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's needs and preferences in detail. Staff adapted care when people's health or needs changed.
“People's care plans recorded the care required and how this should be provided.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could choose from activities such as quizzes, reminiscence sessions, pet therapy and games. The home also had links with local groups, schools and volunteers.
“There was a full programme of activities for people to enjoy, which included quizzes, reminiscence sessions, pet therapy and games.” from the report
Good safety systems
Risks were assessed and staff followed guidance from health professionals. Incidents and accidents were investigated, with lessons shared to help prevent repeat problems.
“Incidents and accidents were reported, recorded and investigated to find out why things had gone wrong and ensure appropriate action was taken to keep people safe.” from the report
Strong oversight
Managers used audits, meetings and action plans to check care and drive improvements. Staff, people and relatives were asked for their views.
“The registered manager and provider had comprehensive systems to monitor and improve the quality of care people received” from the report
Some end of life information still being followed up
minorMost care files contained a ReSPECT form recording people's wishes about treatment. Where this information was missing, staff were following it up.
“Where this information was not already recorded, staff were following this up.” from the report
- 01How will you assess and record my relative's wishes about hospital treatment and end of life care?
- 02How would you support my relative if they have dementia, distressed behaviour, choking risks or mobility needs?
- 03Which activities and one-to-one support would be available for my relative's interests and preferences?
- 04How would you respond if my relative's health or care needs changed?
- 05How can our family raise a concern, and how would you keep us informed about the outcome?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the care home premises; the previous overall rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staffing and some records needed attention.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 2 and 3 August 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and quality checks, and observed care being given.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People generally received personalised care, were treated with dignity, and had access to activities, food choices and health professionals. Staff were trained and understood people's needs, including the needs of people living with dementia.
Feedback about staffing was mixed, especially in Memory Lane. Some people and relatives felt there were not enough staff, while the home had increased staffing, changed how breaks were covered and added staff at busy times. Inspectors also found some delays with meals and drinks, incomplete complaint records and monitoring records that had not always been completed consistently.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff being compassionate, considerate and respectful. People were supported to maintain their privacy, independence, family life and personal beliefs.
“People were supported by staff who treated them with compassion and care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's routines, preferences, communication, eating, personal care and mobility. People and relatives were involved in reviews.
“People received individualised care which reflected their personal wishes, needs and routines important to them.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People could take part in group and individual activities, including music, pottery, exercise and reminiscence. Community groups and visitors were also welcomed.
“They offered a diverse range of activities to reflect people's lifestyle choices, preferences, interests and hobbies.” from the report
Action to improve staffing
The home had responded to concerns by adding staff at peak times, increasing night staffing and changing break arrangements. Staffing needs were being reviewed.
“Staffing levels were closely monitored and reviewed to make sure there were sufficient staff to support people.” from the report
Mixed views about staffing
needs fixingSome people and relatives felt staff were rushed or that there was not enough help, particularly in Memory Lane at meal times and during activities. The home used agency staff while vacancies were being filled.
“Some people told us, "Staff are in a rush", "There is a shortage of staff" and "Sometimes there is not enough help".” from the report
Delays with meals and drinks
needs fixingOn the second inspection day, some people waited for drinks and meals. The manager said they would investigate the cause.
“On the second day of our inspection we observed people having to wait for drinks and for their meals” from the report
Some records were incomplete
minorFluid intake and repositioning records had not always been completed consistently. Complaint records kept in the home were also missing information, although the missing documents were found during the inspection.
“Records kept in the home were not complete.” from the report
No registered manager at the visit
minorThere was no registered manager when inspectors visited. A manager had been appointed and was applying to CQC for registration.
“At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager.” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally working in Memory Lane during meals, activities, days and nights?
- 02How do you make sure there is enough cover when staff take breaks or when agency staff are used?
- 03What changes have been made to prevent people waiting for meals and drinks?
- 04How do you check that fluid intake, repositioning and complaint records are complete?
- 05Has the manager since become registered with CQC, and what progress has been made with the planned dementia care project and refurbishment?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five areas; the home remained Good in every area and had also been rated Good at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 September 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 Hunters Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.