CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Huthnance Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse, clear risk plans, enough staff and safe medicines arrangements. Some refurbishment and water-quality work was still being addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and choices. Staff had suitable training and supervision, and people were supported with food, health appointments and least restrictive decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People appeared relaxed and happy with staff. Staff respected privacy, dignity and communication needs, and supported people to make decisions and remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with communication, relationships, activities and interests, and relatives felt able to raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong leadership, supportive staff relationships and effective quality checks. Managers used feedback and information about people's needs to improve care.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some refurbishment and water-quality work ongoing.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 24 February 2020. One inspector spoke with two people, staff and managers, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records. Feedback was also sought from relatives and health and social care professionals.
The home supported four people with complex learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found that people received personalised care, were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, pursue interests and develop independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good outcomes and care, but the rating does not mean every part of the service was perfect.
Personalised support
Care plans gave staff detailed information about each person's preferences, needs and wishes. Inspectors found that care was adjusted to individuals.
“People received personalised care which met their needs.” from the report
Kind relationships
People appeared relaxed and happy with staff. Staff showed affection, respect and understanding of people's ways of communicating.
“People smiled, laughed and actively sought the company of staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose activities, took part in daily tasks and were supported to develop skills and do as much as possible for themselves.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Skilled and sufficient staff
There were enough staff to meet people's care and social needs. Recruitment checks, induction, training and supervision were in place.
“Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient numbers to ensure people's care and social needs were met.” from the report
Refurbishment and water quality
minorSome areas of the home were worn or damaged and a refurbishment programme was in place. External works had affected the water system, although the issue had been risk assessed and action was being taken.
“There was a programme of refurbishment in place to address those areas of the home that were worn or damaged.” from the report
- 01Which areas of the home were worn or damaged, and has the refurbishment programme now been completed?
- 02What was the effect of the external works on the water system, and how was water safety checked?
- 03How will you support my relative to communicate choices, concerns or complaints if they cannot raise them verbally?
- 04How will you make sure agency staff understand my relative's individual care and communication needs?
- 05How are changes in my relative's health, behaviour or anxiety recorded and shared with staff?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the care provided and the care home premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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, August 2017
Huthnance Park was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but relatives reported delays in putting agreed ideas into practice.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 August 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with relatives, staff and professionals, looked around the home, and checked care, staff and management records. Three people were living there at the time, although the home could support up to four people.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines practices, detailed care plans and good support for people's health, independence, communication and activities.
People appeared relaxed and happy. Staff treated people with kindness and respect, knew their needs well and supported them to make choices. Relatives were positive overall, but some were frustrated that agreed ideas could take a long time to happen.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them patiently, while respecting their privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were treated with kindness, compassion and respect.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough skilled staff, recruitment checks were completed, and medicines were stored, given and recorded safely.
“Medicines were managed safely to ensure people received them in accordance with their health needs and the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Good staff training
New staff had a thorough induction, followed by house induction and shadowing. Staff received regular training, supervision and appraisals.
“Staff were well supported through a system of induction and training.” from the report
Delays with agreed ideas
minorRelatives said the home listened to their ideas but could take too long to put them into practice. The report gives an example of a simple idea taking over two years.
“Relatives told us their ideas were listened to, however, there was some frustration about the length of time it could take for agreed ideas to be implemented.” from the report
Changes in support workers
minorOne relative felt that too many changes in the support team could unsettle their relative. Management said it had put a plan in place to improve consistency.
“Another relative agreed that overall the level of care was good but felt there was too much change in their relative's support team which could unsettle the person.” from the report
- 01How quickly do you act on suggestions from families, and how do you keep them updated if there is a delay?
- 02How will you provide a consistent support team for my relative?
- 03How would you support my relative to communicate choices about food, activities and daily care?
- 04How do you assess and review risks while still supporting people to be independent in the community?
- 05What training and experience would the staff supporting my relative have with their specific health and communication needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, but inspectors could not obtain verbal views from some people because of their complex health needs and instead observed care and reviewed communication tools. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 August 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 Huthnance Park
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.