CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hunters Creek Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited without notice on 1 and 5 December 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care and reviewed care files, staff recruitment records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed properly, meals and health care met people's needs, and staff treated people with dignity and respect.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with breaches of regulations. The provider had made the improvements set out in its action plan. At this inspection, the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Improved safety systems
Safeguarding and risk management had improved since the previous inspection. The home was no longer in breach of the relevant regulations.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made improvements to their processes and was no longer in breach of this regulation.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely. Staff also worked with health professionals to support timely deliveries.
“People's medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors observed positive interactions and respectful support with privacy and dignity.
“Our observation of the staff interaction with people supported these comments.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff clear information about people's needs, preferences and distress. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing these plans.
“People received personalised care which met their needs and allowed them choice and control over how their needs were met.” from the report
Good management oversight
The home used regular audits and monthly action plans to monitor care and address issues. People, relatives and staff could give feedback about how the home was run.
“There were regular quality monitoring audits undertaken in areas such as people's; care plans, weights and prevention of skin damage, the environment, medicines and any incidents and accidents.” from the report
Recording pressure-relieving care
needs fixingThe electronic reporting system sometimes stopped staff recording pressure-relieving care. The home used other evidence to show the care was being provided and planned to move to another system.
“The provider's electronic reporting system intermittently prevented staff from recording when they provided pressure relieving care.” from the report
Use of agency staff
minorSome people disliked agency staff because they felt these staff did not know their needs as well as permanent staff. Agency use had fallen from 6% to 2%, with plans to reduce it further.
“some people did not like agency staff supporting them as they felt they did not know their needs as well as permanent staff.” from the report
- 01Has the electronic recording problem for pressure-relieving care been fixed, and how is this care checked now?
- 02What proportion of staff are currently agency staff, and how are they introduced to my relative's needs?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed with them and with our family?
- 04How will you make sure my relative receives activities and communication support suited to their preferences?
- 05How are medicines checked with the GP and pharmacy to prevent delays or missed medicines?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous Requires Improvement rating, including infection prevention and control checks under Safe, with ratings and findings reported for all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but serious gaps in safeguarding, risk management and records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 April 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, staff files and management records. They also checked infection control arrangements.
The home was not always safe. Safeguarding concerns were not always reported to the local authority or CQC. Pressure-relieving mattresses were incorrectly set for five people, repositioning records were inconsistent, and agency staff did not have documented inductions.
Inspectors found some positive practice. Medicines were managed safely, staff were trained, the home was well maintained, activities were available and visits were welcomed. However, personal care, drinking support, care plans and oversight were not consistently good enough.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Requires Improvement. This is the first inspection of this newly registered service. The previous provider's service was rated Good in September 2019, but that rating does not show that the current home is meeting the same standard.
Medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff had medicines training and their competence was checked regularly.
“People received their medicines safely.” from the report
Kind interactions
Although some relatives raised concerns about personal care, inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and respect.
“During our inspection, we observed staff treating people in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Activities and visitors
People had regular activities and could receive visits without restrictions during the inspection.
“Throughout our inspection, we observed people receiving visits.” from the report
Food choices
Food was of good quality and people could choose between main meals. Staff supported people to eat when needed.
“People had choices around what they ate.” from the report
Staff development
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. The provider also supported some staff with further development.
“Records showed staff received training to support them with their roles.” from the report
Safeguarding reports
seriousThe provider did not always tell the local authority or CQC about safeguarding concerns, including incidents where people were injured. This meant safeguarding teams might not have been able to decide how incidents should be investigated.
“The provider did not always inform the local authority and CQC of safeguarding concerns.” from the report
Pressure care
seriousFive pressure-relieving mattresses were set incorrectly, and records did not always show that people were repositioned on time. This increased the risk of pressure ulcers.
“This meant people were at increased risk of developing pressure ulcers.” from the report
Agency staff checks
seriousThere was no documented induction to confirm agency staff understood people's needs and care plans. The report links this gap to a risk of unsafe care.
“There were no systems to confirm agency staff had understood people's needs and care plans.” from the report
Care plans and records
needs fixingCare plans were not always accurate or detailed enough. Gaps included communication needs, anxiety, hydration and health-related needs.
“People's care plans were not always accurate and up to date.” from the report
Personal care and drinks
needs fixingRelatives and one person reported inconsistent personal care. Records also showed that at least one person was not always offered drinks often enough to meet their recommended intake.
“There was a risk people may not always receive consistent support to drink enough.” from the report
Infection control
minorSome staff did not wear face masks correctly during the inspection, which could increase the risk of an infectious outbreak.
“We observed some staff not wearing face masks properly throughout our inspection by not ensuring face masks covered their mouths and noses.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that pressure-relieving mattresses are set correctly and that repositioning happens at the times in each person's care plan?
- 02What is your process for reporting safeguarding concerns to the local authority and CQC, and how do you check that this has happened?
- 03How do you document agency staff inductions and confirm they understand each person's needs and care plan before providing care?
- 04How are care plans being reviewed to include communication, anxiety, hydration and health-related needs?
- 05How do you check that people receive the personal care and drinks recorded in their care plans?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of this newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 August 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 Hunters Creek Care Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- December 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 October 2019.
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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.