CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Hunters Down Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures covered visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not covered by the targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that coronavirus infection prevention and control measures were safe.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 11 January 2021. It checked infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
The inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and infection outbreaks safely. The home also had updated infection control and coronavirus policies.
The inspection did not give an overall quality rating. The safe question was recorded as inspected but not rated, and the other four areas were not covered.
Managed visits
Visits were arranged in advance, limited to one or two people, and held in the garden with masks and cleaning time between visits.
“Visitors, one or two people only, could visit their family member, friend by appointment only.” from the report
Staff separation
Staff breaks were staggered and staff were kept within their own communities during shifts to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“The manager and care manager told us that staff were cohorted into the different communities (units) each shift and remained there, to reduce the risk of cross contamination.” from the report
Written infection controls
The home had an infection control policy covering decontamination and fluid spillages, as well as a separate coronavirus policy.
“There was an infection control policy that included a decontamination section re COVID-19 and fluids spillage.” from the report
End-of-life visiting
A named relative or friend could visit someone receiving end-of-life care at an agreed time while wearing full protective equipment.
“For anyone on end of life a named relative /friend was at an agreed time able to sit with the person in the room whilst wearing full PPE.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged and what infection control measures are currently required?
- 02Are staff still kept within separate communities during each shift?
- 03How are residents and staff currently tested for coronavirus or other infections?
- 04How often are the infection prevention and control policies reviewed and updated?
- 05What arrangements are currently available for relatives visiting someone receiving end-of-life care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not provide a full overall rating or assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 2021 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 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some care-plan and staffing points to check.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 12 November 2019. Inspectors spoke with nine people, 12 relatives and eight care staff. They also spoke with managers and reviewed care, medicines and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated kindly and respectfully. Inspectors found enough staff on the inspection day, safe medicines management, personalised care and a range of activities.
There were some points to improve. Guidance about the slings used with hoists was not recorded properly in every care plan. People and relatives had mixed views about staffing and food. The overall rating remained Good, and the Responsive rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind, patient and respectful. Inspectors also saw caring interactions and reassurance when people needed it.
“People and relatives told us staff were kind, caring and respectful towards them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, preferences and communication needs. People and relatives were involved in reviewing care.
“Care plans were personalised and reflective of people's likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered activities throughout the day, including entertainment, outings and visits. Families and friends were free to visit at any time.
“There were activities throughout the day and these were alternated in the different units” from the report
Good management
The manager was approachable and the home used audits, meetings and surveys to gather views and identify improvements.
“The registered manager had quality assurance systems to ensure the monitoring and improvement of the service, action plans were in place to drive improvement.” from the report
Hoist and sling records
needs fixingGuidance for staff about people's slings was not properly documented in every care plan. The manager said this would be reviewed, although inspectors observed staff using hoists safely.
“We found guidance for staff on people's slings when using a hoist was not documented appropriately in all care plans.” from the report
Staffing can feel tight
minorSome people and relatives said they sometimes had to wait or that staffing seemed short. Inspectors found staffing appropriate on the inspection day, but one staff member said the team would struggle if someone was off sick.
“We have enough time to engage with people, but we would struggle if someone went off sick.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorPeople and relatives gave mixed feedback about the food. Inspectors found that choices, drinks and dietary requirements were being managed.
“People and relative's gave mixed reviews about the food.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure hoist and sling instructions are now recorded correctly in every care plan?
- 02What happens to staffing levels when a member of staff is off sick?
- 03How do you respond when someone has to wait for help after using their call bell?
- 04What food choices are available if my relative does not like the main meal?
- 05How will you record and review my relative's food, fluid and dietary needs?
This inspection looked at the care home, its premises and care, and assessed all five CQC questions; all five ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 December 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 Hunters Down Care Home
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- July 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,020 to £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.