CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Huntingdon Court
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Huntingdon Court is now rated Good, after inspectors found major improvements and confirmed it was no longer in special measures.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 and 27 June 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staffing had improved, care plans were personalised, activities were available and complaints were handled. People and relatives spoke positively about the care and staff.
Some issues remained. One person's best-interest decision was not specific to covert medicines. Inspectors also found stained dining chairs and a strong urine odour in one bedroom. The provider said it would replace the chairs and look at the flooring.
The previous overall rating was Inadequate and the home had been in special measures since October 2022. Inspectors found enough improvement, so the home was no longer in breach of regulations or in special measures.
Improved risk management
Care records gave staff clearer guidance about risks, including falls, diabetes, catheters, food and fluids, and emergency evacuation.
“Potential risks to people were assessed and kept under review to promote their safety.” from the report
Kind staff and enough support
Inspectors found sufficient staff and safe recruitment. People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and responsive.
“People spoke positively of the support they received from staff, saying they were kind and caring and never felt rushed.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans included people's history, communication needs, interests and preferences. People could join activities such as quizzes, singing and bingo, or choose quiet time.
“People were able to take part in activities of their choosing.” from the report
Stronger leadership
The management team had improved quality checks, action plans and oversight. Staff were involved in improving care plans and understood the importance of accurate records.
“The registered manager and the management team demonstrated they had improved the oversight and monitoring of the service to promote good quality and safe care.” from the report
Covert medicine decision
needs fixingOne person's mental capacity assessment and best-interest decision did not specifically cover covert medicine administration. Management said it would arrange a best-interest meeting.
“However, one person's mental capacity assessment and best interest decision was not specific to covert medicine administration.” from the report
Cleanliness and odour
needs fixingInspectors found stained fabric dining chairs and a strong urine odour in one first-floor bedroom. The provider said wipeable chairs had been ordered and would seek advice about the flooring.
“We noted some fabric covered dining room chairs were stained, and one bedroom on the first floor which had a vinyl floor covering had a very strong odour of urine.” from the report
Occasional waits for help
minorA few people said they sometimes had to wait for support. Inspectors observed that requests were answered promptly during the visit, and management monitored call-bell response times.
“You do have to wait sometimes when you ring the buzzer. Staff are busy, they do apologise.” from the report
- 01What action was taken to make the best-interest decision for covert medicine specific to the person's medicine arrangements?
- 02Have the wipeable dining chairs been installed, and what was done about the strong urine odour in the first-floor bedroom?
- 03How many staff are on duty on each shift, and how do you check that staffing remains sufficient when people need help at the same time?
- 04What were the findings and actions from the latest quality monitoring checks?
- 05Which ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection because they were not assessed this time?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected, and the report says the other ratings were carried forward from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 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, August 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with safety, staffing and leadership.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 and 25 May 2022. One inspector reviewed information, spoke with four people using the home and spoke with six staff members. The inspection looked at Safe, Responsive and Well-led.
Inspectors found that risks were not managed properly. Falls, poor food and fluid intake, staffing levels, safeguarding concerns and incomplete records were not dealt with reliably. Care did not always follow people's needs and preferences, including regular baths and showers.
The home was clean, infection control was generally followed, staff recruitment checks were completed and medicines were usually managed safely. However, Safe and Well-led were rated Inadequate, and Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. The overall rating was Inadequate.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home was following infection prevention measures, including safe visiting, personal protective equipment and outbreak arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Safer recruitment
Pre-employment checks were completed to help ensure staff had suitable skills and experience.
“Staff were recruited in a safe way because pre employment checks were carried out to ensure as far as possible only staff with the right skills and experience were employed.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were generally stored, recorded and given safely. Staff had training and their competence was checked.
“People received their medicines in a safe way. Staff had training and had their competency assessed.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends and could take part in activities, including music, singing and visits to local facilities.
“People were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and family.” from the report
Falls and poor risk management
seriousKnown risks were not managed reliably. People at risk of falling had further falls and injuries, and checks and accident records were not always completed.
“Risk was not managed effectively. Two people were known to be at risk of falling, measures in place to reduce the risk were not effective because they had further falls resulting in injuries.” from the report
Staffing pressures
seriousStaff did not always have enough time to supervise people with complex needs or provide baths and showers when wanted.
“Staffing numbers were not sufficient to meet people's needs or keep people safe.” from the report
Safeguarding reports
seriousAn allegation of abuse and an incident involving bruising were not reported to the local authority or CQC.
“People were not always protected from the risk of abuse. This was a breach of regulation 13 (1)” from the report
Leadership and records
seriousThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection, several managers had left since 2019 and poor records and known problems had not been put right or sustained.
“There was a lack of leadership and oversight and a failure to make or sustain improvements.” from the report
Communication needs
needs fixingThe home did not have an accessible information policy or evidence that people were receiving information in formats they could understand.
“The service was not meeting this standard. This was identified at our inspection in June 2021.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made to prevent falls and how are these changes checked?
- 02How do you record and review food and fluid intake for people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration?
- 03How many staff are on duty at night and how do you provide supervision when several people need support at the same time?
- 04How are safeguarding incidents reported to the local authority and CQC?
- 05Has a registered manager now been appointed, and what evidence shows that previous problems have been fixed and sustained?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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 Huntingdon Court
9 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2022InadequateSafe: InadequateResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2021Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2020Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2020Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 September 2012.
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 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.