CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Huntington House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, managing testing, supporting safe admissions and taking steps to prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and safe arrangements for visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, rather than the home's overall quality.
Inspectors found the home was clean and that high-touch areas were cleaned throughout the day. Staff had training in using and disposing of protective equipment, and checks were made on handwashing and protective equipment use.
The home had COVID-19 testing arrangements for people, visitors and staff. People who had COVID-19 had designated staff, separate entrances and care plans. Visitors could use a separate area, and people could keep in touch with relatives by telephone and video calls.
Cleanliness and protective equipment
The home was clean, high-touch areas were cleaned during the day, and staff had training in using and disposing of protective equipment. The manager also checked handwashing and protective equipment use.
“Staff had received training in how to use and dispose of personal protective equipment (PPE) safely.” from the report
Safe visiting arrangements
Visitors received information about the safety procedures. A separate visiting area meant they did not need to walk through the home.
“A designated area had been established which visitors could access without walking through the home.” from the report
Support for people with COVID-19
Designated staff supported people who had confirmed COVID-19. They used separate entrances and avoided communal areas to reduce the risk of spreading the virus.
“These staff members used separate entrances and did not access any communal areas to reduce the risk of the virus spreading.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now?
- 02How are handwashing and protective equipment use checked and recorded?
- 03How would staff care for someone who tested positive for an infection, and would designated staff still be used?
- 04How can relatives visit safely now, and what rules apply to visitors?
- 05How would the home contact and support relatives during an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it was not an overall assessment and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 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, June 2018
Huntington House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with significant improvements since the last inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 10 April 2018. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, visitors, staff and managers, and checked care plans, medicines records, risk assessments, complaints and audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines management, clean surroundings, good healthcare support and staff who treated people with kindness and respect.
The report says significant improvements had been made since December 2016. Staffing had increased, care plans were more detailed, people's legal rights were better protected and management checks were now being used to drive improvements.
A Good rating means the inspectors found the service met the expected standard in the areas they assessed at that visit. It does not mean every part of care was perfect.
Improved staffing
Staffing levels had increased since the previous inspection. Inspectors found that people's needs were met promptly and staff had time to spend with them.
“Sufficient skilled staff were deployed which meant people did not have to wait for their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, interests, preferences and specific care instructions. Staff could explain how they adapted their approach for different people.
“Care plans were comprehensively completed.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home offered activities linked to people's interests, including trips, music, crafts, gardening and visits from animals. People who stayed in their rooms were also visited each day by the activities co-ordinator.
“There was a varied activity programme in place which reflected people's hobbies and interests.” from the report
Responsive management
The provider and manager used audits, meetings, surveys and complaints to identify improvements. Suggestions from people, including about food and the environment, were acted on.
“The registered manager and provider valued people's feedback and acted on their suggestions.” from the report
Some records were incomplete
needs fixingSome best-interest decisions were not formally recorded at the time inspectors looked at them. The manager later sent information showing this had been completed.
“However, this was not always formally recorded. Following the inspection the registered manager sent us additional information” from the report
Call bell distraction during medicines
minorAn audit found that the call bell could distract staff while they were giving medicines. The manager was exploring different tones to reduce this risk.
“Medicines audits had identified that the call bell system could be a distraction when administering medicines.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure best-interest decisions are formally recorded and easy to find?
- 02What changes were made to prevent the call bell distracting staff during medicines administration?
- 03How do you decide whether staffing levels are enough for residents' changing needs?
- 04How are activities adapted for people who prefer to stay in their rooms?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and making changes?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the building and care provided, and all five CQC questions were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 2018 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 Huntington House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.